Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
environ-mcp

environ-mcp

by renhail
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

获取接入配置

get_client_config

Returns a ready-to-paste MCP configuration snippet for ~/.workbuddy/mcp.json, including this machine's X-Environ-Client identifier, so new colleagues can connect to the server.

Instructions

返回可以直接粘进 ~/.workbuddy/mcp.json 的 MCP 接入配置片段，含本机的客户端标识（X-Environ-Client）。新同事接入时用这个。

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": "get_client_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.5

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the output is paste-ready, it is machine-local, and it embeds X-Environ-Client. It says nothing, however, about whether a client id exists on this machine, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens on failure, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

It is two short sentences. The return payload and its destination path come first, and the usage cue comes last, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no parameters, so the description only has to explain what comes back. It does that well enough: a config snippet plus a client identifier. It does not explain the shape of the snippet (for example, whether it is a JSON object or a string field), which is a minor gap for an agent that needs to act on the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline of 4. There is no schema-level argument meaning for the description to add or omit.

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 states a specific resource and action: it returns an MCP access-config snippet ready to paste into ~/.workbuddy/mcp.json, including the local client identifier (X-Environ-Client). That clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which are all about stations and user binding, but the verb '返回' is a little generic and the tool name already says 'get config'.

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 closing line '新同事接入时用这个' gives an implied when-to-use cue, namely onboarding a new colleague. It names no alternatives and states no exclusions or prerequisites, such as whether the agent must already be bound, so the guidance stays at the implied level.

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