Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-systemctl

mcp-systemctl

by rileylsmith1997
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_services

List systemd services, optionally filtering by state (running, failed, etc.), name glob pattern, or unit type.

Instructions

List all systemd services. Optionally filter by state (running, exited, failed, inactive, all) and by name glob pattern (e.g. 'ssh*', 'cron*'). Defaults to listing all service units.

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": "list_services"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateNoFilter by service state (default: all)all
patternNoOptional glob pattern to filter service names (e.g. 'ssh*', 'cron*')
typeNoSystemd unit type to list (default: service)service

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It describes listing and filtering, which implies a read operation with no side effects. However, it lacks disclosure of output format, pagination, or ordering.

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?

The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose. However, it could be more precise by acknowledging the type parameter, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers filtering basics but fails to mention the type parameter's existence. Sibling tools are not referenced, and the discrepancy between 'services' and the broader unit types may confuse the agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds examples for pattern ('ssh*', 'cron*') and enumerates state options, but it omits the 'type' parameter entirely, which controls which unit types are listed. This omission reduces clarity for agents.

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 the tool lists systemd services and mentions filtering options, but it inaccurately limits to 'services' while the schema includes other unit types (timer, socket, etc.). This is a minor misrepresentation.

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 provides context for filtering by state and pattern, but does not differentiate when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., list_failed_services, get_service_status), nor does it mention that the type parameter allows listing non-service units.

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