Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PCCheck MCP Server

PCCheck MCP Server

by jjackk0k
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Network & wifi check

network_check
Read-only

Diagnose slow internet, lag, or connection drops by measuring latency and packet loss. Checks wifi signal, ping to router vs internet, and DNS speed for a clear diagnosis.

Instructions

Diagnose the internet connection: active adapters, wifi signal quality, ping to the router vs the internet (separates 'my wifi is bad' from 'my ISP is down'), DNS speed, and a plain-language diagnosis. Measures latency and packet loss, not download speed in Mbps. Use for slow internet, lag, or connection drops.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "network_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it measures latency and packet loss, provides a plain-language diagnosis, and separates router vs internet issues. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence lists what is measured, second clarifies scope and use cases. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains what is measured and what is not. However, it does not specify the format of the returned diagnosis (e.g., plain text, structured data), leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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, so this dimension is at baseline 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the verb 'diagnose' and the resource 'internet connection', listing specific diagnostics (active adapters, wifi signal, ping to router vs internet, DNS speed, plain-language diagnosis). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'speed_test' by explicitly stating it measures latency and packet loss, not download speed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states use cases: 'Use for slow internet, lag, or connection drops.' It also clarifies what it does not measure (download speed), guiding agents away from using this tool for speed tests.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools