Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcp-system-info show me the current system status"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A system information tool based on the MCP (Model Context Protocol) specification
This project implements the latest Model Context Protocol specification, providing:
Hardware Information - Complete hardware details (CPU, memory, storage, graphics, battery, serial numbers)
System Status - System status information (OS, network interfaces, CPU and memory usage)
Related MCP server: MCP System Info Server
# Using pnpm (recommended)
pnpm install
# Or using npm
npm install# Start server
npm start
# Or development mode (auto-restart)
npm run devnpm link
# Then use directly
mcp-system-infoThe server provides 2 streamlined MCP tools:
Tool Name | Description | Parameters |
| Get complete hardware information | None |
| Get system status and resource usage | None |
{
"mcpServers": {
"system-info": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["npx", "-y", "mcp-system-info"]
}
}
}{
"mcpServers": {
"system-info": {
"command": "cmd",
"args": ["/c", "npx", "-y", "mcp-system-info"]
}
}
}Run the included test script:
node test.jsAll tools return structured JSON data:
{
"content": [
{
"type": "text",
"text": "# Information Title\n\n```json\n{data}\n```"
}
]
}Read-only system information access
No system modification operations
Structured JSON data format
Follows MCP security best practices
ISC
Welcome to submit Issues and Pull Requests to improve this tool!
Get complete hardware information (CPU, memory, storage, graphics, battery, serial numbers)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature or required permissions. It only states it gets information, without confirming it is non-destructive or safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description lists the key hardware components returned, providing useful context. However, it does not describe the return format or structure, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description naturally does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves complete hardware information, listing specific components (CPU, memory, storage, graphics, battery, serial numbers), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_system_status' which focuses on system status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for hardware specs, but it does not explicitly guide when to use it versus the sibling 'get_system_status' or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get system status information (operating system, network interfaces, CPU and memory usage)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses what information is returned (OS, network, CPU, memory) but does not mention potential performance impact, authentication requirements, or data freshness. Basic transparency is achieved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. No redundant or extra words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description covers the tool's purpose but lacks details on return value structure or format. Since no output schema exists, more information would improve completeness. Still adequate for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter information but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves system status information and lists specific categories (OS, network, CPU, memory). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_hardware_info', which likely focuses on hardware details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining system status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_hardware_info'. No when-not or context cues are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0get_hardware_infoget_system_statusScored across 2 tools
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of system information: hardware details vs. dynamic system status. There is no overlap in purpose.
Both tools follow a consistent 'get_<domain>' pattern, making the naming predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal but not unreasonable for a focused purpose. However, the scope might benefit from a few more to cover software/process information.
The tools cover fundamental hardware and system status, but lack coverage of software inventory, running processes, or detailed storage analysis. The surface is functional but not comprehensive.
Read-only MCP access to a documented IT fleet: state, changes, posture. 15 tools.
Scans remote MCP servers for protocol, security, and TLS issues; exposes scan tools via MCP.
Remote MCP for tool license checks, vendor policy review, alternatives, and license receipts.
