Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Linux System MCP Server

Linux System MCP Server

by dgpl-mcps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

linux_system_tool_search

Search for Linux system tools by keyword to identify the correct tool for a specific capability. Returns matching tool names, descriptions, and schemas.

Instructions

[meta] Search for available linux_system tools by keyword. Use this when you need a specific capability but aren't sure which tool to call. Returns names, descriptions, and full schemas for matching tools.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "linux_system_tool_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesKeyword to search for in tool names and descriptions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions it returns names, descriptions, and schemas, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. For a search tool, this is reasonably transparent but could be more explicit.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the [meta] tag, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states purpose, when to use, and what is returned. There is no missing information.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the query parameter is well-documented. The description adds value by explaining what the search returns, which is beyond the schema's scope. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it searches for available linux_system tools by keyword, which is a specific verb+resource. With no sibling tools, differentiation is irrelevant.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this when you need a specific capability but aren't sure which tool to call,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is sufficient.

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