Skip to main content
Glama
jackalterman

Windows Diagnostics MCP Server

by jackalterman

scan_system_components

Identify and analyze issues in Windows system components such as services, drivers, and uninstall entries to improve system stability and performance.

Instructions

Scan system components like services, drivers, and uninstall entries for issues

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main asynchronous handler function that runs a PowerShell script to scan system components (services, uninstall entries, file associations, drivers) for issues and returns formatted markdown results.
      export async function scanSystemComponents() {
        const result = await runPowerShellScript(REGISTRY_SCRIPT, { ScanServices: true, ScanUninstall: true, ScanFileAssoc: true, ScanDrivers: true, JsonOutput: true }) as AllTypes.RegistryDiagnosticResults;
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: `# System Component Scan
    
    ${result.SystemComponents && result.SystemComponents.length > 0 ? result.SystemComponents.map(c => `- **Type**: ${c.Type}
      **Name**: ${c.Name}
      **Issue**: ${c.Issue}
      **Details**: ${c.Details}`).join('\n\n') : 'No issues found with system components.'}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      }
  • src/index.ts:145-152 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler. Defines the tool name, description, and input schema (no required parameters).
    {
      name: 'scan_system_components',
      description: 'Scan system components like services, drivers, and uninstall entries for issues',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:553-554 (registration)
    Dispatch registration in the CallToolRequestSchema switch statement that maps tool calls to the scanSystemComponents handler.
    case 'scan_system_components':
      return await registry.scanSystemComponents();
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. It states the tool scans for 'issues' but doesn't specify what constitutes an issue, whether the scan is read-only or modifies data, how long it takes, or what the output looks like. For a scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by specifying the exact types of issues scanned for, but this is a minor improvement.

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 scanning system components and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'issues' means, what the scan entails, or what results to expect. For a tool that likely returns diagnostic information, more context is needed to understand its behavior 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 zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict or compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 action ('scan') and target resources ('system components like services, drivers, and uninstall entries'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on scanning for 'issues' rather than analyzing, finding, or getting specific data types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'scan_security_risks' or 'get_system_diagnostics', which could involve similar scanning.

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 mentions scanning for 'issues' but doesn't specify what types of issues, when this scan is appropriate, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'scan_security_risks' or 'get_system_diagnostics'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts for usage.

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