Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PCCheck MCP Server

PCCheck MCP Server

by jjackk0k
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

System overview

system_overview
Read-only

Retrieves PC hardware specifications including OS, CPU, RAM, GPU, displays, drives, and uptime to identify system capabilities or check compatibility with software requirements.

Instructions

Hardware specs and identity: OS version, CPU model/cores, RAM, GPU(s) + VRAM, displays with refresh rate, drives with free space, uptime. Use for 'what are my specs', 'what PC do I have', or to check specs against a game/app's requirements ('can I run X?').

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": "system_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing what specific data the tool returns (OS version, CPU, RAM, etc.), which is behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and provides usage examples, making it efficient and scannable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It provides enough context for an agent to decide correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, so a score of 4 is appropriate (baseline).

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 clearly states the tool provides hardware specs and identity, listing specific fields like OS version, CPU, RAM, GPU, displays, drives, uptime. It distinguishes from siblings by covering a broad overview rather than focusing on a single subsystem.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use for' with example queries, giving clear context for when to invoke. It implies when not to use (e.g., for GPU-only queries, use gpu_info) but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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