Uses the Apache 2.0 license for its code, allowing for open-source distribution and modification with appropriate attribution.
Runs on Node.js runtime, enabling server-side JavaScript execution for Windows system management capabilities.
Utilizes Shields.io for generating status badges in the documentation, displaying version, download counts, and other project metadata.
The MCP server is built with TypeScript, providing type safety and modern JavaScript features for its implementation.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Windows System MCP show me what's running on my computer right now"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides AI models with powerful Windows system management capabilities. This MCP enables AI assistants to interact with Windows systems through a secure, well-structured interface.
Directory Browsing: Navigate and explore directory structures
File Operations: Read files, get file information, and search for files
Disk Analysis: Monitor disk usage and find large files
Advanced Search: Pattern-based file searching with recursive options
Process Monitoring: List and monitor running processes
Resource Tracking: Track CPU and memory usage by process
Process Control: Start, stop, and manage processes
Process Tree: Visualize parent-child process relationships
Hardware Details: CPU, memory, disk, and network adapter information
OS Information: Windows version, updates, and system configuration
Environment: Environment variables and system paths
User Management: User accounts and current user information
Registry Reading: Access Windows registry keys and values
System Configuration: Retrieve system settings from registry
Startup Programs: List programs that start with Windows
Installed Software: Enumerate installed applications
Service Control: Start, stop, and restart Windows services
Service Monitoring: Monitor service status and dependencies
Startup Services: Manage services that start automatically
Service Search: Find services by name or description
Network Diagnostics: Ping, traceroute, and connectivity testing
Port Scanning: Check open ports and network connections
Network Configuration: View adapters, IP configuration, and routing
WiFi Management: List and manage WiFi profiles
Real-time Metrics: CPU, memory, disk, and network performance
Resource Analysis: Identify top resource-consuming processes
Performance Counters: Access Windows performance counters
System Health: Monitor overall system performance
Related MCP server: PowerShell MCP Server
# Global installation (recommended)
npm install -g windows-system-mcp
# Or use directly with npx
npx windows-system-mcpWindows 10/11
Node.js 18+
PowerShell 5.1+
npm install -g windows-system-mcpClone the repository:
git clone https://github.com/guangxiangdebizi/windows-system-mcp.git
cd windows-system-mcpInstall dependencies:
npm installBuild the project:
npm run buildIf installed globally:
windows-system-mcpIf built from source:
npm startFor development with auto-rebuild:
npm run devIf installed globally:
npx supergateway --stdio "windows-system-mcp" --port 3100If built from source:
npm run sseThis will start the server on http://localhost:3100/sse
If installed globally:
{
"mcpServers": {
"windows-system-mcp": {
"command": "windows-system-mcp"
}
}
}If built from source:
{
"mcpServers": {
"windows-system-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["path/to/windows-system-mcp/build/index.js"]
}
}
}{
"mcpServers": {
"windows-system-mcp": {
"type": "sse",
"url": "http://localhost:3100/sse",
"timeout": 600
}
}
}Note: For SSE mode, start the server first using the commands shown in the deployment section above.
// List directory contents
{
"action": "list_directory",
"path": "C:\\Users",
"recursive": true,
"max_depth": 2
}
// Search for files
{
"action": "search_files",
"pattern": "*.log",
"path": "C:\\Windows\\Logs",
"recursive": true
}
// Find large files
{
"action": "find_large_files",
"path": "C:\\",
"size_threshold": 500
}// List running processes
{
"action": "list_processes",
"sort_by": "cpu",
"limit": 20
}
// Get process details
{
"action": "get_process_details",
"process_name": "chrome"
}
// Kill a process
{
"action": "kill_process",
"process_id": 1234
}// Get system overview
{
"action": "get_system_overview"
}
// Get hardware information
{
"action": "get_hardware_info",
"category": "cpu"
}
// Get environment variables
{
"action": "get_environment_vars",
"filter": "PATH"
}// Ping a host
{
"action": "ping_host",
"host": "google.com",
"count": 4
}
// Scan ports
{
"action": "scan_open_ports",
"host": "localhost",
"port_range": "80,443,3000-3010"
}
// Get network adapters
{
"action": "get_network_adapters"
}Principle of Least Privilege: Run with minimal required permissions
Input Validation: All inputs are validated and sanitized
Safe Operations: Read-only operations are prioritized
Error Handling: Comprehensive error handling prevents system exposure
Audit Trail: All operations can be logged for security auditing
We welcome contributions! Please see our Contributing Guidelines for details.
Fork the repository
Create a feature branch: git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature
Make your changes
Add tests if applicable
Commit your changes: git commit -m 'Add amazing feature'
Push to the branch: git push origin feature/amazing-feature
Open a Pull Request
This project is licensed under the Apache License 2.0 - see the LICENSE file for details.
NPM Package: https://www.npmjs.com/package/windows-system-mcp
GitHub: https://github.com/guangxiangdebizi/windows-system-mcp
Author: Xingyu Chen
Email: guangxiangdebizi@gmail.com
NPM Profile: https://www.npmjs.com/~xingyuchen
Xingyu Chen
🌐 Website: GitHub Profile
📧 Email: guangxiangdebizi@gmail.com
💼 LinkedIn: Xingyu Chen
📦 NPM: @xingyuchen
Model Context Protocol for the excellent MCP framework
The Windows PowerShell team for providing powerful system management capabilities
The TypeScript and Node.js communities for excellent tooling
NPM Package: Available as windows-system-mcp
Language: TypeScript
Runtime: Node.js
Platform: Windows
License: Apache 2.0
MCP Version: 0.6.0
Comprehensive file system operations including directory browsing, file reading, searching, and basic file operations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | The file system action to perform | |
| path | No | File or directory path (required for most actions) | |
| pattern | No | Search pattern for file searching (supports wildcards) | |
| recursive | No | Whether to search recursively (default: false) | |
| max_depth | No | Maximum depth for recursive operations (default: 3) | |
| size_threshold | No | Size threshold in MB for finding large files (default: 100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions 'basic file operations,' it doesn't specify what these include (create, delete, modify?), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is too vague about behavioral traits beyond the high-level categorization.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating operation categories, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or the scope of 'basic file operations.' For a multi-action tool with no structured behavioral hints, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'searching' which aligns with the 'search_files' action and 'pattern' parameter, but provides no additional semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'comprehensive file system operations' and lists specific operations (directory browsing, file reading, searching, basic file operations). It distinguishes from siblings like 'network' or 'process_manager' by focusing on filesystem functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or when specific actions within the tool should be used. With siblings like 'system_info' that might overlap with disk usage reporting, there's no contextual differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Network information and diagnostics including network adapters, connections, ports, routing, and network testing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | The network operation to perform | |
| host | No | Target host for ping, traceroute, or port scanning | |
| port | No | Specific port number for port-related operations | |
| port_range | No | Port range for scanning (e.g., '80-443') | |
| protocol | No | Protocol filter for connections and ports (default: all) | all |
| count | No | Number of ping packets to send (default: 4) | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds for network operations (default: 5) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'network testing' which implies potentially invasive operations like port scanning, but doesn't warn about permissions needed, rate limits, network impact, or whether operations are read-only versus intrusive. The description is too vague about behavioral traits beyond stating what operations exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('network information and diagnostics') followed by specific examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted phrasing. The structure is clear and appropriately sized for a multi-function tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of information is returned, how results are formatted, whether operations are synchronous/asynchronous, or any error conditions. The description covers what the tool does at a high level but lacks necessary operational context for proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions general categories like 'network testing' which aligns with actions like ping_host and scan_open_ports, but provides no additional semantic context about parameter usage or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'network information and diagnostics' with specific examples like adapters, connections, ports, routing, and testing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like filesystem or process_manager by focusing on network operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential network-related siblings (none exist in this server).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it lists network operations, it doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or limitations. For example, it doesn't mention if certain actions require administrative privileges or when to choose ping_host versus trace_route.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
System performance monitoring including CPU usage, memory usage, disk I/O, network I/O, and system performance counters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | The performance monitoring action to perform | |
| duration | No | Duration in seconds for monitoring (default: 10) | |
| interval | No | Interval in seconds between measurements (default: 1) | |
| process_count | No | Number of top processes to show (default: 10) | |
| counter_name | No | Specific performance counter name to query |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'monitoring' but lacks details on behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is read-only, requires admin permissions, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. aggregated data, or handles errors. The description is too vague for a tool with multiple actions and parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information: 'System performance monitoring' followed by specific components. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured to highlight core vs. optional features.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, output format, or usage scenarios. For a performance monitoring tool with diverse actions, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it lists monitoring areas (CPU, memory, etc.) which loosely map to the 'action' enum but doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage contexts. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'System performance monitoring including CPU usage, memory usage, disk I/O, network I/O, and system performance counters.' It specifies the verb ('monitoring') and resources (CPU, memory, disk, network, performance counters). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'system_info' or 'process_manager,' which might overlap in functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists what it monitors but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for real-time monitoring, historical data, or how it differs from 'system_info' or 'process_manager' siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Comprehensive process management including listing processes, getting process details, killing processes, and monitoring resource usage
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | The process management action to perform | |
| process_id | No | Process ID for specific process operations | |
| process_name | No | Process name for searching or filtering | |
| sort_by | No | Sort processes by specified criteria (default: cpu) | cpu |
| limit | No | Limit number of results (default: 20) | |
| include_system | No | Include system processes (default: true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'killing processes' which implies destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose risks, permissions needed, or side effects. It also doesn't cover rate limits, response formats, or error handling for a multi-action tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's scope. It lists key actions without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) given the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 6 parameters, multiple actions including destructive ones, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying actions map to parameters but doesn't explain semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., how 'kill_process' differs from other actions). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'comprehensive process management' and lists specific actions (listing, getting details, killing, monitoring). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'filesystem' or 'network' by focusing on processes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'service_manager' or 'performance' which might overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like 'service_manager' for services or 'performance' for monitoring. The description lists actions but doesn't specify contexts or prerequisites for choosing among them (e.g., when to kill vs. monitor).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Windows Registry operations including reading registry keys, values, and searching registry entries
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | The registry operation to perform | |
| key_path | No | Registry key path (e.g., HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion) | |
| value_name | No | Registry value name to read | |
| search_term | No | Search term for finding registry keys or values | |
| hive | No | Registry hive to search in (default: HKLM) | HKLM |
| max_depth | No | Maximum depth for recursive operations (default: 2) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists operation types, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions (admin rights for HKLM), potential system impact (registry modifications can break systems), whether operations are read-only or can modify data, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for a tool with such sensitive operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes specific examples without unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 6 parameters, sensitive system operations, and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return formats, error conditions, security implications, or provide enough context for safe and effective use. The lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidelines creates significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, provide usage examples, or clarify when specific parameters are needed for different actions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'Windows Registry operations' with specific examples (reading keys/values, searching entries), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'system_info' or 'service_manager' that might also interact with system components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose registry operations over sibling tools like 'system_info' or 'filesystem', nor any context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites for registry access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Windows service management including listing services, getting service details, starting/stopping services, and monitoring service status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | The service management action to perform | |
| service_name | No | Service name for specific service operations | |
| status_filter | No | Filter services by status (default: all) | all |
| startup_type_filter | No | Filter services by startup type (default: all) | all |
| search_term | No | Search term for finding services | |
| limit | No | Limit number of results (default: 50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions like starting/stopping services but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether these operations require elevated privileges, potential system impacts, rate limits, error handling, or what 'monitoring service status' entails. For a tool with potentially destructive operations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently lists the main capabilities without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping related operations (e.g., query vs. control operations).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple action types including potentially destructive operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permission requirements, system impacts, return formats, or error conditions. For a service management tool with start/stop/restart capabilities, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with enums, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Windows service management' with specific verbs (listing, getting, starting/stopping, monitoring) and resources (services). It distinguishes itself from siblings like process_manager or system_info by focusing specifically on Windows services. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., network could also involve service monitoring).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., administrative privileges), when to choose service_manager over process_manager for similar operations, or any context about Windows-specific requirements. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Comprehensive system information including hardware details, OS info, environment variables, and system configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | The system information action to perform | |
| category | No | Hardware category to focus on (for hardware_info action) | all |
| filter | No | Filter for environment variables or software (supports wildcards) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is retrieved but doesn't mention whether this requires admin permissions, if it's read-only (implied but not stated), potential performance impacts, or output format details. For a system information tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the key information categories. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a system information tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or performance, provide usage guidance relative to siblings, or detail output structure. For a tool that could expose sensitive system data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists categories of information (hardware, OS, environment variables, configuration) which partially map to the 'action' parameter's enum values. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by providing high-level context but doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving comprehensive system information with specific categories listed (hardware details, OS info, environment variables, system configuration). It uses a specific verb ('including') and identifies the resource ('system information'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'performance' or 'process_manager'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others like 'performance' for metrics or 'process_manager' for process-related information. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
filesystemnetworkperformanceprocess_managerregistryservice_managersystem_infoEach tool has a clearly distinct domain and purpose: filesystem handles files, network manages network operations, performance monitors system metrics, process_manager controls processes, registry accesses the Windows Registry, service_manager manages services, and system_info provides system details. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these tools.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear, descriptive nouns (e.g., filesystem, network, performance). There are no deviations in naming style, making the set predictable and easy to understand.
With 7 tools, this server is well-scoped for Windows system management. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the system (e.g., files, network, processes), and the count is neither too thin nor too heavy, fitting the domain appropriately.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Windows system management, including file operations, network diagnostics, performance monitoring, process control, registry access, service management, and system information. There are no obvious gaps, and it supports full lifecycle operations for each domain.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to control Unreal E…
Personal assistant MCP server with search, execute, packages, jobs, secrets, and integrations.
The Mercado Pago MCP Server implements the Model Context Protocol to provide AI agents and LLMs with access to Mercado Pago's APIs and tools within compatible development environments. It acts as an intermediary that translates Mercado Pago resources into executable functions (tools) that AI applications can invoke to perform actions and automate flows. The server simplifies integration, enables using documentation to implement or improve code, and optimizes operations through natural language interactions without manual implementations.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/guangxiangdebizi/windows-system-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
