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., "@WinDirStat MCP Server scan my Documents folder for large files"
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.
Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server for real-time Windows storage analysis, deep folder scanning, safety tiering, and protected cleanup operations.
scan_directory
Deep scans a folder and returns all items with size (MB/GB), file counts, and last write dates.
get_largest_items
Ranks the top N largest files and subdirectories for any target path.
categorize_safety_tiers
Categorizes files/folders into Tier 1 (100% Safe Cache/Temp), Tier 2 (Reviewable Downloads/Media), and Tier 3 (Protected Code/Projects).
clean_safe_targets
Cleans temporary caches and specified paths with built-in protection guards preventing accidental deletion of project repositories.
Related MCP server: Clyan
claude_desktop_config.json)Add the following entry to your %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"windirstat": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"C:\\Users\\Hariz\\windirstat-mcp\\index.js"
]
}
}
}Add to your MCP settings configuration:
{
"mcpServers": {
"windirstat": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"C:/Users/Hariz/windirstat-mcp/index.js"
]
}
}
}Categorize directory items into Tier 1 (100% Safe Cache/Temp), Tier 2 (Reviewable Downloads/Media), and Tier 3 (Protected Code/Projects).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute directory path to categorize |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only lists the tier definitions but does not explain whether the tool modifies files, returns a list, or operates read-only. The action 'categorize' could imply destructive changes, but this is not clarified.
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 conveys the core functionality in under 20 words. No extraneous content; every word adds value.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the tool's output, side effects, and resource requirements. It omits what the tool returns or whether it alters the filesystem, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'path' described as 'Absolute directory path to categorize'. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: categorizing directory items into three tiers with specific examples (Cache/Temp, Downloads/Media, Code/Projects). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like scan_directory or get_largest_items.
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 implies usage for categorizing items into safety tiers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_directory). No exclusions or context for when not to use it are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Safely delete specified temporary cache folders or files with built-in protection guards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targets | Yes | Array of absolute file or directory paths to clean | |
| confirmAction | Yes | Must be true to execute deletion |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must detail behavior. It mentions 'safely delete' and 'built-in protection guards' but does not specify what protections exist (e.g., path validation, confirmation required), the actual deletion behavior, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence conveying the core purpose without extraneous words. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about return value, error handling, and detailed behavior. It only gives a high-level action, leaving 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning (hints at safety via confirmAction) but does not substantially improve understanding beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states it deletes temporary cache folders/files with safety features. The verb 'delete' and resource 'temporary cache folders or files' are specific. Siblings are scanning, listing, and categorizing tools, making this distinct.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a scenario (cleaning temporary files) but does not state prerequisites, when not to use, or how to decide among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find top N largest files and subfolders under a specific path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute directory path to inspect | |
| limit | No | Number of top items to return (default 15) |
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 states the tool finds largest files and subfolders, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, required permissions, performance implications, or behavior on nonexistent paths. Basic behavioral context is present but not comprehensive.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not define 'largest' (e.g., by size in bytes) or mention result ordering, which could be helpful. Overall, slightly incomplete but adequate for most agent use cases.
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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds no further semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying that 'largest' refers to size. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Find', the resource 'largest files and subfolders', and the scope 'under a specific path'. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_directory (which likely lists all) and categorize_safety_tiers (safety-related).
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 implies usage for finding top N items by size under a path, but does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like scan_directory or clean_safe_targets. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Deep scan a directory and return subdirectories sorted by storage size in MB/GB with file counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute directory path to scan | |
| maxDepth | No | Depth to recurse (default 2) | |
| minSizeMB | No | Minimum size threshold in MB (default 50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects, safety, or behavior such as permission requirements or handling of non-existent paths. With no annotations, the description should provide more transparency.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is concise but could be more structured to include usage or behavior details.
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?
The description is incomplete given the complexity of the tool. It does not explain the return format in detail, depth behavior, or error handling. With no output schema, the description should provide more context.
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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, so no improvement.
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 action: deep scan a directory and return subdirectories sorted by storage size with file counts. It uses specific verbs and a resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like get_largest_items and categorize_safety_tiers.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
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.
v1.0.0categorize_safety_tiersclean_safe_targetsget_largest_itemsscan_directoryEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scanning, finding large items, categorizing by safety, and cleaning. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools use snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., scan_directory, categorize_safety_tiers), making predictions easy.
With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for disk cleanup. Each tool adds essential functionality without redundancy or bloat.
The tools cover a logical workflow from scanning to cleaning. Minor gap: no tool to view or manage individual files beyond the clean operation, but the surface is sufficient for the domain.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Gives your AI assistant persistent memory and intelligence about your work patterns.
Your personal data for AI — Telegram, bank, courses, Zoom & more, scoped to you.
Securely search and manage workspace context files for AI agents and teams.
Privacy-first work tracking with summaries, reports, coaching, and AI-ready long-term memory.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/harezadmm/windirstat-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
