Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Local MCP

Local MCP

by colibird-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

run_diagnostics

Checks the health of LMCP on your machine by verifying Apple apps, macOS permissions, and local integrations to help diagnose setup issues.

Instructions

Runs a fast health check of LMCP on this machine: the Apple apps, macOS permissions and local integrations...

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": "run_diagnostics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.341
  2. Removedv3.0.341
  3. Addedv3.0.165

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Fast' hints at a cheap operation, but it never states whether this is read-only, whether results are submitted anywhere (contrast with submit_diagnostics), or what the check produces — and the text is visibly truncated with an ellipsis.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The sentence is short and front-loaded with the verb and scope, but it ends mid-list with '...', signalling the definition is cut off rather than deliberately concise.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should make the outcome clear. It conveys the check's coverage but not whether anything is modified or sent, which is the key distinction an agent needs when choosing among the several diagnose-style siblings.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The scope sentence does at least tell the agent no configuration or targeting arguments are needed.

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 and resource: 'Runs a fast health check of LMCP on this machine', and scopes it to Apple apps, macOS permissions and local integrations. It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings such as lmcp_doctor, permissions_status, or submit_diagnostics, so an agent still needs to infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The listing of what is checked (Apple apps, macOS permissions, local integrations) implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like lmcp_doctor or submit_diagnostics.

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