Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
local-mcp-toolbox

local-mcp-toolbox

by chriswayneh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Installed developer tools

installed_developer_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check which common developer tools are available on a machine, returning an allowlisted inventory for environment troubleshooting.

Instructions

Report availability of an allowlisted set of common developer tools.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "installed_developer_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.5.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that the tool reports only an 'allowlisted' set rather than all installed tools, but says nothing about which tools or how availability is determined.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses; every word earns its place and the scope constraint is stated immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only probe with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It is nearly complete, with the only gap being which tools are on the allowlist and any platform/availability caveats.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify or compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('availability of an allowlisted set of common developer tools'), which is clearer than a tautology. It is distinguishable from filesystem and toolbox siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby system_info tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and does not name any alternative or boundary against siblings like system_info. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools