Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Technitium MCP

Technitium MCP

by drmogie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

technitium_servers

List reachable Technitium servers and identify the cluster primary, showing names and addresses only to verify your DNS setup without exposing tokens.

Instructions

List the Technitium servers this tool can reach, and which is the cluster primary.

Shows names and addresses only. Never shows tokens.

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": "technitium_servers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: the output is limited to names and addresses, and tokens are never exposed. However, it says nothing about ordering, error behavior when a server is unreachable, or any permission requirement.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by the output-content constraint. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a zero-parameter read tool has little surface left to document. The remaining gap is usage context, which the description does not supply.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to clarify and the description correctly does not invent any.

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 ("List the Technitium servers this tool can reach") plus an additional attribute it surfaces (which is the cluster primary), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest-looking sibling (technitium_endpoints), so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the eleven siblings. An agent can infer that this is a discovery call, but nothing in the text confirms or excludes any scenario.

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