Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LS-PrePost-MCP

LS-PrePost-MCP

by lwz20210407
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_installations

Retrieve configured LS-PrePost executables from LS-PrePost-MCP so users can check which installations are set up before running preprocessing or postprocessing jobs.

Instructions

List configured executables only; file existence is not a compatibility test.

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": "list_installations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful interpretive trait — that results reflect configured executables, not verified files, and are not a compatibility signal — which is useful. It still omits whether this is a pure read, whether output is paginated, and what the entries contain.

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?

A single compact sentence with the main action front-loaded and the caveat trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves the description feeling more like a warning than a full definition.

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 zero-param listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch the shape of the returned entries, and it does not. The compatibility caveat is valuable, but an agent still lacks enough context to interpret the result confidently.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('List configured executables'), and the appended clause clarifies what an installation actually is: a configured executable rather than a discovered file. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many other list_* siblings (list_capabilities, list_parts, list_jobs), so the agent must still infer its place in the toolbox.

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 clause 'file existence is not a compatibility test' implicitly warns against a misuse (judging compatibility from this output), which is a partial when-not. But it never names an alternative (e.g. probe_environment, run_on_version) or states the positive condition for choosing this tool, leaving usage largely inferred.

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