Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OmniCommanderMCP

OmniCommanderMCP

by kaannsaydamm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

system_info

Retrieve operating system, architecture, host, home directory, and Node.js runtime details for environment diagnostics.

Instructions

Return operating-system, architecture, host, home and Node runtime details.

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_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return values but does not disclose any potential side effects or behavioral traits beyond being a read operation. It is truthful but minimal.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource list.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficient for understanding what the tool returns. It could mention that output is an object, but this is not a major gap.

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 trivially 100%. The description implies that no arguments are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this is met.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and lists distinct resources: operating-system, architecture, host, home, and Node runtime details. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_info or list_processes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for obtaining system information but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among siblings. It is minimally adequate.

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