Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP SteamOS Devkit

MCP SteamOS Devkit

by elliotttate
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lepton_graphics_debug_status

Inspect graphics debug helpers, Vulkan layers, RenderDoc, perfetto, and Mesa version on a target SteamOS Devkit device.

Instructions

Inspect Lepton graphics debug helper scripts, Vulkan layers, RenderDoc, perfetto, and Mesa version.

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>"
    },
    "name": "lepton_graphics_debug_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loginNo
targetYes
http_portNo
name_typeNoguess

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description lacks behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or required permissions. 'Inspect' implies read-only but is not explicit.

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?

Single sentence, but it enumerates components without structure or prioritization. Could be more concise by omitting the list and focusing on the tool's core function.

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?

Tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, but the description gives no context on inputs or outputs. Fails to explain what the status result contains or how to interpret it.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (target, login, http_port, name_type). No added meaning beyond the schema, which lacks descriptions itself.

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?

Description clearly states the tool inspects specific graphics debug components (helper scripts, Vulkan layers, RenderDoc, perfetto, Mesa version). Verb 'Inspect' is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'lepton_context_inspect' or 'lepton_debug_plan' which may have overlapping purposes.

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. Among many sibling debug/inspection tools, there is no mention of contexts or 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