Skip to main content
Glama
nucleusv

Linux MCP daemon

by nucleusv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

services/list

List systemd services by name pattern and state filters, showing active, load, and sub states for monitoring or troubleshooting.

Instructions

Lists systemd services with optional filtering. Output includes ActiveState, LoadState, and SubState.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternNoWildcard pattern to match service names (e.g., 'kube*', '*ssh*')
sub_stateNoFilter by sub state (e.g., 'running', 'exited', 'dead')
load_stateNoFilter by load state (e.g., 'loaded', 'not-found')
privilegedNoRun as root (may be required depending on policies)
active_stateNoFilter by active state (e.g., 'active', 'failed', 'inactive')
output_formatNoDesired output format (e.g. json, table, wide). Defaults to text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output fields, which is useful, and the verb 'Lists' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no services are modified or that privileged execution may be required.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose and the second names the key output fields. The structure is compact and front-loaded.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, and the description names the main output fields, making this adequate for a simple list tool. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no guidance about privileges or the relationship to services/manage, leaving some gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All six parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general 'optional filtering' phrase, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Lists systemd services', giving a clear verb and resource, and notes optional filtering. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling services/manage tool, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over services/manage or other alternatives, and mentions no prerequisites. 'With optional filtering' hints at invocation style, not decision context.

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