winadmin-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| WAMD_PORT | No | Port of the web interface. Equivalent to the command line switch --port <n>. | 8787 |
| WAMD_AUDIT | No | Path of the append-only audit trail. | %APPDATA%\winadmin-mcp\audit.jsonl |
| WAMD_CONFIG | No | Path where the tool switches are stored. Equivalent to the command line switch --config <path>. | %APPDATA%\winadmin-mcp\config.json |
| WAMD_NO_WEB | No | Set to 1 for stdio only; do not bind an HTTP port. Equivalent to the command line switch --no-web. | false |
| WAMD_NO_UPDATE_CHECK | No | Set to 1 to skip the one-time lookup of the newest release. | false |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| list_pendingB | List destructive actions waiting for approval. |
| confirm_actionB | Executes a destructive action that is waiting for approval, by its confirmation_id. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct roles: one lists pending destructive actions and the other confirms a specific action by confirmation_id. There is no overlap in action or resource, so an agent can easily choose between them.
Both tools use snake_case and follow a predictable verb_noun style (list_pending, confirm_action). No mixed casing or inconsistent verb conventions are present.
Two tools is borderline thin for an admin approval workflow, even though each tool has a distinct purpose. The set would feel better scoped with at least one additional operation such as reject or cancel.
The surface covers listing pending actions and confirming them, but omits rejecting/denying, canceling, retrieving details, and viewing history. These are significant gaps for a safe destructive-action approval workflow.