Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP SteamOS Devkit

MCP SteamOS Devkit

by elliotttate
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lepton_context_inspect

Inspect a Lepton container context to retrieve labels and optional mount details for diagnostics and verification.

Instructions

Inspect one Lepton container context, including labels and optional mounts.

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": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "lepton_context_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loginNo
targetYes
contextYes
http_portNo
name_typeNoguess
include_mountsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It implies a read operation but does not confirm safety or any destructive potential.

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 description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It does not waste words, but lacks detail needed for tool understanding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 6 parameters (2 required), no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of key parameters like 'target' and 'context', despite having an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at 'optional mounts' (matching 'include_mounts' boolean) and mentions 'labels', but does not clarify 'target', 'context', 'login', 'http_port', or 'name_type'.

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?

The description clearly states the tool inspects a Lepton container context, including labels and optional mounts. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'lepton_containers' or 'lepton_mounts'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify context (e.g., when to inspect vs list) or provide any exclusions.

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