Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
arch-mcp

arch-mcp

by nihalxkumar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

run_system_health_check

Read-only

Check disk space, failed services, available updates, orphan packages, and critical news to get a complete system health overview on Arch Linux.

Instructions

[MONITORING] Run a comprehensive system health check. Integrates multiple diagnostics to provide a complete overview of system status, including disk space, failed services, updates, orphan packages, and more. Only works on Arch Linux. Comprehensive check: Updates available, disk space, failed services, database freshness, orphans, and critical news.

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": "run_system_health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing the specific diagnostics included, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as potential performance impact or required permissions. The annotation already indicates no destructive side effects, so the description's added value is moderate.

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?

The description is relatively concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. The last sentence repeats some content, but overall it is efficient and structured appropriately.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no parameters or output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, scope, and constraints. It covers all necessary context for a monitoring tool with read-only behavior.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.

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 'Run a comprehensive system health check' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., analyze_storage, check_database_freshness) by being a combined diagnostic that integrates multiple checks.

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 explicitly notes 'Only works on Arch Linux' and lists the checks it performs (disk space, failed services, updates, etc.), which helps the agent decide when to use this comprehensive tool versus more specific sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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