Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Raccoon MCP

Raccoon MCP

by luoluoluo22
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Build cache statistics

build_cache_stats
Read-only

Inspect build-cache entries to view hit counts and disk usage, helping diagnose cache performance and storage issues.

Instructions

List build-cache entries, hit counts and disk usage.

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": "build_cache_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceIdNo
deviceNameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds what data is surfaced (entries, hit counts, disk usage), which is useful, but says nothing about filtering by device, scoping, or result volume.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the verb and the exact data returned with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only stats tool with no output schema, naming the returned data is largely sufficient. However, the unexplained deviceId/deviceName parameters and the absence of any device-scoping statement leave a real gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the two parameters (deviceId, deviceName) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap; an agent cannot tell whether these are filters or required identifiers.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (build-cache entries, hit counts, disk usage), so an agent can immediately tell what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like build_cache_clear or build_cache_run, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the closely related build_cache_clear and build_cache_run tools, nor any prerequisites mentioned. The agent must infer the context from the name alone.

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