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

local-mcp-toolbox

by chriswayneh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Local MCP Toolbox server status

toolbox_server_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve redaction-safe server status metadata to verify availability and troubleshoot local MCP environments.

Instructions

Return server-generated, redaction-safe status metadata.

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": "toolbox_server_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.5.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that — the output is "redaction-safe" — but says nothing about freshness, caching, or failure modes.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with no padding and the key qualifiers (server-generated, redaction-safe) front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. The remaining gap is routing: the description never says how this status differs from the several sibling status/info tools, which is the main thing an agent needs here.

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 is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty argument object is unambiguous.

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

Purpose3/5

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

It gives a verb ("Return") and a resource ("status metadata"), but the resource is abstract and largely restates the tool name and title. Nothing distinguishes it from sibling tools such as system_info or toolbox_metrics_snapshot, so an agent cannot tell which status surface this covers.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over system_info, disk_usage, or toolbox_metrics_snapshot, and no exclusions. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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