Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
arch-mcp

arch-mcp

by nihalxkumar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

manage_orphans

List or remove orphaned packages on Arch Linux. Use dry-run to preview removals and exclude specific packages.

Instructions

[MAINTENANCE] Unified tool for managing orphaned packages (dependencies no longer required). Supports two actions: 'list' (show orphaned packages) and 'remove' (remove orphaned packages). Only works on Arch Linux. Requires sudo access for removal. Examples: action='list' → shows all orphaned packages with disk usage; action='remove', dry_run=true → preview what would be removed; action='remove', dry_run=false, exclude=['pkg1'] → remove all orphans except 'pkg1'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_orphans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'list' (list orphaned packages) or 'remove' (remove orphaned packages)
dry_runNoPreview what would be removed without actually removing (only for remove action). Default: true
excludeNoList of package names to exclude from removal (only for remove action)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: requires sudo, only works on Arch, dry_run functionality, and removal behavior. However, the destructiveHint=false annotation contradicts the description's mention of package removal, which is destructive. This is a minor issue given the description's clarity.

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 well-structured with a clear topic, actions listed first, then requirements, then examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the use of examples enhances understanding without redundancy.

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?

While the description covers platform, permissions, and action details, it lacks precise information about the output format for the 'list' action (e.g., whether it's a list of package names or includes size). Without an output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining default behavior (dry_run=true), providing examples for each action, and clarifying the effect of the exclude parameter. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and enum definitions.

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 is for managing orphaned packages with two actions (list and remove), using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_packages by focusing exclusively on orphaned packages.

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 provides explicit usage context: works only on Arch Linux, requires sudo for removal, and includes examples for different scenarios. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the specificity to orphans makes usage clear.

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