Windows System MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each 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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.
Average 2.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
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 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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![windows-system-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/guangxiangdebizi/windows-system-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/guangxiangdebizi/windows-system-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![windows-system-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/guangxiangdebizi/windows-system-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/guangxiangdebizi/windows-system-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

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