Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
thincms-mcp

thincms-mcp

by pmccarroll-fuel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

thincms_capabilities

Check MCP wrapper version and tool list to detect stale cache. Restart host if tool count or list mismatches expectations.

Instructions

Inspect the running MCP wrapper: version, count of registered tools, and the live tool list. Use to detect when your MCP host has cached a stale tool surface — if the count or list doesn't match what you expect for the current wrapper version, restart your host (Claude Desktop / Claude Code / VS Code) so it re-handshakes with the wrapper.

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": "thincms_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Inspect') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, safe, or has no side effects. It also omits details like output format or whether it requires authentication.

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 succinct sentences: first states purpose, second gives a concrete use case with actionable advice. No filler words, every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description lists what the tool returns (version, count, tool list), which is sufficient for this simple tool. However, it could clarify that calling it has no side effects.

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?

There are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline for no parameters is 4.

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's purpose: inspect the running MCP wrapper for version, tool count, and live tool list. This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools which perform content management operations.

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 a specific use case: detecting stale tool caches and instructs to restart the host. While it gives clear when-to-use context, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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