Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-easy-installer

mcp-easy-installer

by onigetoc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

repair_mcp_server

Repair a malfunctioning MCP server by uninstalling and reinstalling it using a keyword and original installation URL.

Instructions

Repair an MCP server by uninstalling and reinstalling it. Requires the keyword to find the server and the original installation URL.

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": {
      "server_keyword": "<server_keyword>",
      "repo_url": "<repo_url>"
    },
    "name": "repair_mcp_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_urlYesThe original GitHub URL or npm URL used to install the server
server_keywordYesKeyword or name to find the server to repair (case-insensitive, partial match)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., data loss from uninstall) or permissions needed. For a destructive action, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but slightly more structure (e.g., separating action from requirements) could improve readability. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers core functionality. However, it lacks mention of failure conditions or prerequisites, making it slightly incomplete.

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% with descriptions. The description adds useful detail: server_keyword is case-insensitive and partial match, which schema omits. Adds value beyond schema.

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 that the tool repairs an MCP server by uninstalling and reinstalling it, with specific requirements. It distinguishes itself from siblings (install, search, uninstall).

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 description implies usage for repairing a broken server but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternative approaches like manual uninstall+install. No exclusions or alternatives provided.

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