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

LS-PrePost-MCP

by lwz20210407
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

probe_environment

Launch a fresh native instance to report embedded Python and flag missing empty-model counters as warnings.

Instructions

Launch a fresh native instance and report its embedded Python; missing empty-model counters are warnings.

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": "probe_environment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 non-obvious detail — that missing empty-model counters surface as warnings rather than errors — but says nothing about whether launching a 'fresh native instance' has side effects, how costly/slow it is, or what happens on failure. The one warning detail is helpful but far from sufficient for a heavyweight environment-probe operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight, front-loaded two-clause sentence with no filler. It is compressed almost to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should at least characterize what is returned; it gestures at 'embedded Python' and mentions a diagnostic-warning behavior, but leaves 'native instance' and the response shape undefined. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 calibration the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing here, but there is nothing to add; no parameters exist to document.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb+resource pair ('launch a fresh native instance', 'report its embedded Python'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, 'native instance' is never defined — of what, and for what product — so an agent can't cleanly separate this from probe_scl or run_on_version. The purpose is inferable but under-specified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus probe_scl, list_installations, or run_on_version, all of which plausibly overlap. There are no stated prerequisites, no environment assumptions, and no exclusions.

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