Skip to main content
Glama
jackalterman

Windows Diagnostics MCP Server

by jackalterman

find_orphaned_entries

Identify and locate registry entries that reference files no longer present on the system to optimize Windows diagnostics and system stability.

Instructions

Find orphaned registry entries pointing to non-existent files

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that runs a PowerShell script to find orphaned registry entries and returns formatted markdown results.
      export async function findOrphanedEntries() {
        const result = await runPowerShellScript(REGISTRY_SCRIPT, { FindOrphaned: true, JsonOutput: true }) as AllTypes.RegistryDiagnosticResults;
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: `# Orphaned Registry Entries
    
    ${result.OrphanedEntries && result.OrphanedEntries.length > 0 ? result.OrphanedEntries.map(o => `- **Path**: ${o.Path}
      **Type**: ${o.Type}`).join('\n\n') : 'No orphaned entries found.'}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      }
  • Tool schema definition in the ListTools response, including name, description, and empty input schema (no parameters required).
    {
      name: 'find_orphaned_entries',
      description: 'Find orphaned registry entries pointing to non-existent files',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:555-556 (registration)
    Dispatch/registration of the tool handler in the CallToolRequestSchema switch statement, calling registry.findOrphanedEntries().
    case 'find_orphaned_entries':
      return await registry.findOrphanedEntries();
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 the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information on permissions required, whether it's read-only or destructive, performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of entries, a report, or just a count), how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context about operation and output.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. It focuses on the tool's purpose instead.

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: 'Find orphaned registry entries pointing to non-existent files'. It specifies the action ('Find'), the resource ('orphaned registry entries'), and the condition ('pointing to non-existent files'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_registry' or 'get_registry_health', which prevents a perfect score.

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, timing considerations, or how it differs from sibling registry tools like 'search_registry' or 'get_registry_health'. The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/jackalterman/windows-diagnostic-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server