Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Glitchrupt MCP Server

Glitchrupt MCP Server

by elbee19
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

glitchrupt_status

Read-only

Checks permission, reduced motion, pause, busy state, cooldown, and installed app version, opening the app in the background when needed so agents can confirm readiness before sending alerts.

Instructions

Check permission, reduced motion, pause, busy state, cooldown, and installed app version. Opens app in background if needed.

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": "glitchrupt_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it opens the app in the background if needed. It does not describe required permissions or other side effects, so it adds some but not rich context.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the complete list of checked states, and the second adds the background-opening behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete for calling the tool. The only notable gap is the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the status items returned rather than inventing parameter discussion.

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 ('Check') and enumerates the exact status items it returns, which makes the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like glitchrupt_variants or glitchrupt_signal, but the status-focused scope is evident.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as glitchrupt_variants or glitchrupt_signal, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description implies it is a status check but leaves selection entirely to inference.

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