Windows Operations MCP

by sandraschi

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v14.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct domains (accounts, apps, network, performance, etc.), but there is potential ambiguity between 'system_management' and 'autonomous_troubleshooter', as both could be used for diagnosing system issues. However, the troubleshooting tool is specific to failure analysis while system_management covers info, health, and port tests.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names use a mix of styles: some are noun_verb (system_management, windows_accounts) and others are adjective_noun (autonomous_troubleshooter, agentic_system_hardening). The 'windows_' prefix is used for many but not all, and there is inconsistency in verb usage (e.g., 'list_card' vs 'management').
Tool Count4/5
17 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for the broad domain of Windows operations. Each tool covers a distinct subdomain (accounts, apps, network, etc.), so the count is justified.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers a wide range of Windows administration tasks: system info, process/service management, accounts, apps, network, event logs, permissions, performance, JSON/archive operations, and troubleshooting. There are no obvious gaps for common administrative workflows.
Average 3.4/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 23 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'monitoring and agentic telemetry' but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., killing processes may be destructive), error conditions, or return behavior beyond 'Union[Dict, ToolResult]'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short but the second sentence about return type is confusing and poorly structured. Could be more concise without ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain the effect of each action, required parameters per action, or what ToolResult means.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions no parameter specifics. The description adds no meaning beyond what the action enum suggests.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'perform process management operations' and lists actions, but is vague about the specific resource (processes on what system?). It distinguishes from siblings like 'command_execution' but not clearly from 'process_list_card' or 'windows_performance'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions using 'schtasks.exe' and 'wmic.exe' for reliability, but doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., task creation affects system state, deletion is destructive). No mention of permissions required or error behavior.
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?
Description is concise with clear sections. However, the RATIONALE paragraph adds little value for an agent; it's stylistic rather than functional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 7 parameters and a varied action set, but description doesn't explain return values (output schema exists). Lacks details on how actions interrelate, required vs optional params per action, and post-conditions.
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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief descriptions (e.g., 'task_name: Unique name for the scheduled task'), but doesn't clarify which parameters apply to which actions. For example, 'task_path' only relevant for 'create_task' but not indicated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it performs Windows Automation operations (Scheduled Tasks and WMI Queries). However, it conflates two distinct functionalities in one tool, which could confuse an agent. The verb 'perform' is generic; the description could be more specific about the core actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like command_execution or windows_services. The rationale mentions 'autonomous system orchestration and deep environment forensics', but doesn't specify exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses agentic telemetry and use of external command expand.exe, but does not mention side effects (e.g., file creation/modification), permissions needed, or return behavior. Relies on an external binary without noting potential absence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is moderately sized but includes a RATIONALE section that is verbose and not needed for tool use. The Args list is helpful but duplicates schema info. Could be more concise by removing rationale.
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?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, multiple actions) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains all actions and key parameters, but lacks detail on return values and error states. Output schema exists but description does not reference it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers all parameters with enums for action and archive_type. Description provides brief semantics for each argument, but with 0% schema coverage, description adds only baseline understanding. For example, target_dir and source_files are explained minimally but not their optional behavior.
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 it performs 'Windows archive management operations with agentic telemetry' and lists actions like list, extract, create, add_file, expand_cab. It specifies CAB support via expand.exe, which differentiates from standard zip/tar operations. However, it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools, as none deal with archives directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, and no context on prerequisites or operating system requirements. The description implies Windows-native focus but does not exclude Linux. No alternative tool suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions uses 'net.exe' for reliability and telemetry, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies system accounts, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two paragraphs with a RATIONALE section, which adds context but could be more concise. The parameter list is clear but front-loading is moderate; the RATIONALE could be shortened or integrated.
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?
Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description partially compensates by listing parameters and their purpose. However, it lacks details on output schema (which exists but is not described) and how actions map to parameters. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description lists each parameter and its role (e.g., 'password: New password (for add_user or set_password)'). However, it does not explain constraints like valid username format or password rules, which the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states it performs Windows local account and group management, which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. The verb 'perform' and resource 'local account and group management' are specific and differentiate it from sibling tools like windows_permissions or windows_services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a RATIONALE explaining why the tool exists (autonomous IAM, uses net.exe), but it does not specify when to use this tool versus its siblings. No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'requires elevation' for the all_users parameter, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the tool is destructive (uninstall), what side effects occur, or error handling. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but includes a rationale section that could be integrated into the main description. The Args list is helpful, but there is some redundancy. Overall, it is adequately structured but not exceptionally lean.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description lacks detail on required permissions, return values, error scenarios, and full parameter constraints (e.g., when package_name is required). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage in schema, but the description lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Filter for listing (e.g. 'Xbox', 'Bing')'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's default/null values, but some parameters like 'ctx' are not explained, and the documentation is minimal.
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 clearly states the tool manages 'modern Windows AppX and Store packages' with PowerShell orchestration, and lists specific operations like bloatware removal and package auditing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'windows_services' or 'windows_accounts', which target different system components.
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 rationale explains why this tool is needed (AppX cannot be managed via traditional methods), but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. It implies usage for AppX management but lacks concrete when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions consolidating netsh/PowerShell commands but does not disclose behavioral traits like system impact, required permissions (e.g., admin rights), or side effects (e.g., rules persistence). For a tool that can add/delete firewall rules, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description includes a RATIONALE section that provides context but is verbose and not strictly necessary. The Args list helps structure parameter info, but overall length could be reduced. Each sentence adds some value, but the RATIONALE and telemetry mention could be condensed.
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?
Given the 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers actions and key parameters but lacks details on return format (output schema exists but not described) and behavior for each action. For a networking tool, it misses crucial info like privilege requirements, error handling, or network impact. Moderate completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description lists parameter purposes for action, rule_name, rule_dir, rule_action, rule_program, rule_port. However, it doesn't add semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., enum values, default for rule_dir/action). The description partially compensates for lack of schema descriptions.
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 performs Windows networking and firewall operations, listing specific actions like firewall_list, firewall_add, firewall_delete, and diag. This provides clear verb and resource identification, but it doesn't differentiate it from siblings like 'windows_services' or 'system_management', which are distinct enough to avoid confusion. The RATIONALE section adds context but is not critical for purpose.
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 networking and firewall tasks via netsh and PowerShell, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. The RATIONALE hints at security auditing and perimeter hardening, but this is generic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions integration with FastMCP 3.2 Context for real-time progress reporting and LLM-in-the-loop diagnostics, adding transparency beyond the schema. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose error handling behavior or permissions needed, limiting the score to 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but includes a rationale paragraph that is somewhat redundant with the first sentence. The parameter list is clearly structured, but the rationale could be condensed. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters with low schema coverage and no annotations, so the description should be richer. It covers action types, pid usage, include_network, and duration_seconds but omits details like return format or sampling behavior. With an output schema present, return values are handled, but missing details on system impact or prerequisites reduce completeness.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief descriptions of each parameter in the Args section, but they are minimal (e.g., 'process ID to monitor (for "process")') and do not explain enumeration values or defaults fully. The description adds some meaning but is insufficient.
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 clearly states it performs Windows Performance monitoring, consolidating system-wide, process-specific, and low-level counter monitoring. The example usage and parameters (action, pid, include_network, duration_seconds) clarify the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like system_management or system_health_card, so it loses a point.
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 mentions 'consolidates system-wide, process-specific, and low-level counter monitoring' and provides parameter details, implying different use cases for each action. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., system_health_card for quick health checks), and no when-not-to-use conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'comprehensive error handling and agentic telemetry,' which hints at reliability but lacks details on behavior like privilege requirements or side effects. With no annotations, the description partially compensates but still leaves gaps about what happens on failure or if services are critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) but includes a technical return type specification that may not be immediately helpful. The first sentence conveys purpose, but the second sentence introduces ambiguity (Union[Dict, ToolResult]) without clarifying when each is returned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain behavior for different actions, required privileges, or the meaning of return types. The telemetry mention is vague and does not compensate for missing operational details.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It only mentions 'action' implicitly and 'service_name' through context. No details are given for filter_status, include_system_services, or wait_timeout, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.
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 explicitly states 'Perform Windows service operations' and the input schema provides five clear actions (list, start, stop, restart, status), making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like process_management or windows_automation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'process_management' or 'windows_accounts' might overlap, but no differentiation is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions actions like 'read', 'write', 'patch', implying file system mutations. However, it does not disclose if operations are destructive, require permissions, or what happens on errors. Moderate disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Includes rationale with colloquial language ('portmanteau'), but structure is clear. Could be more concise without losing key information.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and fairly complex multi-action tool, description covers basic parameter meanings and rationale. Lacks details on return values despite output schema existing, but that is not required. Could mention security or error behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The docstring explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'action: The JSON operation to perform', 'path: File path for read/write/patch operations'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but is brief. Baseline 3 due to low coverage, but description adds value.
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 names specific operations (read, write, validate, patch, extract_from_text, format) and states it's for JSON data operations with agentic telemetry. However, the mention of 'agentic telemetry' and 'portmanteau' is confusing and does not clearly distinguish from siblings. No sibling directly overlaps, so purpose is clear but slightly muddled.
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 RATIONALE explains why the tool exists (patching configs, extracting JSON from logs). It does not specify when to use this tool vs. siblings or when not to use it. The enum for action gives clear sub-purposes, but no guidance on choosing this over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains it uses Reasoning-First sampling, coordinates tools, and has a dry_run mode. However, lacks details on side effects or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is decently structured with rationale and args, but the RATIONALE section is verbose for the value added. Could be more concise.
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?
Has output schema, so return values are covered. Description explains purpose and parameters but lacks usage context, sequencing, or integration with other tools.
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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It explains target enum values (services, registry, accounts) and dry_run behavior. No additional info on return values or side effects beyond schema.
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 clearly states it executes a system hardening mission using SEP-1577 Sampling and identifies vulnerabilities. However, it could be more specific about the end result and how it differs from sibling tools like system_management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like system_management. The description mentions it coordinates multiple tools but doesn't specify prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions integration with 'FastMCP 3.2 Context for real-time progress reporting and LLM-in-the-loop diagnostics', which is useful behavioral context. Since no annotations are provided, this is valuable. However, it does not disclose destructive potential, error behavior, or side effects beyond error handling.
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 structured with sections (DESCRIPTION, RATIONALE, Args, Examples) and is relatively compact for 6 parameters. It front-loads the purpose and rationale. Minor redundancy in the RATIONALE could be trimmed, but overall well-organized.
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 the tool has 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides thorough parameter documentation, examples, and behavioral context (telemetry). Output schema exists (not shown) but isn't needed to explain return values per instructions. It covers the tool's scope adequately.
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 description explains parameters in the Args section, detailing purpose for each (e.g., 'action: The system operation to perform', 'host: Target hostname for port testing'). Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates by listing meaning for all 6 parameters, including default values and usage context.
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 performs 'system management operations' including info, health checks, and network connectivity. It lists example actions, which clarifies the resource and verb. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'system_health_card' or 'autonomous_troubleshooter' that also perform health checks.
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 a RATIONALE explaining consolidation of multiple operations, and includes example usages. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools that may overlap (e.g., system_health_card for health, command_execution for general commands).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses use of asyncio.to_thread for blocking calls, async implementation, and agentic telemetry via ctx. These go beyond what annotations (none) provide. However, it does not mention error handling specifics or permission requirements.
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 structured with a rationale and docstring-style args, front-loading key info. It avoids redundancy but could be more concise by removing implementation details (asyncio) that are not essential for selection.
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 the output schema exists (context signal), the description covers core functionality and parameter semantics adequately. However, for a tool with 6 parameters and multiple actions, some behavioral details (e.g., export limitations, default log_name) could be more explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains each parameter's purpose (action, log_name, max_events, etc.), but lacks details like format constraints or default behaviors beyond schema defaults. This is acceptable but not exemplary.
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 clearly states 'Perform Windows Event Log operations' and lists actions (query, clear, export, list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like system_health_card or command_execution. However, it could be more explicit that this is a combined tool for multiple operations, which might confuse agents expecting separate tools.
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 through the list of actions but offers no explicit guidance on when to use which action or when to prefer alternatives. The rationale mentions consolidating operations, but no when-not or sibling comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a 3-phase approach (scan events, check processes, sample) but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or whether it makes system changes. It mentions sampling and telemetry, which hints at behavioral traits.
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 (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses bullet points for the 3-phase approach, aiding readability. No fluff, but the 'Args' section could be integrated more naturally.
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 the tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (not shown), the description explains the methodology and parameter. Additional details on return format would improve completeness, but the core functionality is well-covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds context: 'operation_failure: Description of the failure to investigate.' This clarifies the parameter's role. However, it doesn't specify expected format or examples, which is adequate for a single string parameter.
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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Diagnose WHY a Windows operation failed'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'command_execution', 'system_health_card', and 'windows_event_logs' by targeting a specific troubleshooting use case with a structured 3-phase approach. The title is null but the description is clear.
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 indicates when to use: when a Windows operation fails and you need root cause analysis. It implies alternatives exist (e.g., event logs, process list) but doesn't explicitly exclude other tools. The 3-phase approach helps set expectations, but guidance on when not to use this tool is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'comprehensive error handling and agentic telemetry' and that it uses 'icacls.exe', giving some behavioral context. However, it does not fully describe effects (e.g., destructive changes like revocation, inheritance changes impact on subdirectories). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but only partially addresses it.
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 but uses a docstring-like format with sections (DESCRIPTION, RATIONALE, Args). The first line provides the core purpose. Minor waste: 'industrial reliability' is slightly verbose but acceptable.
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 5 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and use of icacls. It lacks return value details, but an output schema exists, so that is acceptable. Completeness is high for a non-annotation case.
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 description defines each parameter meaningfully in the 'Args' section, adding context beyond the schema (e.g., 'Target user or group (required for grant/revoke)'). With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so well by explaining each parameter's purpose and constraints.
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 starts with a clear verb phrase 'Perform Windows Permission (ACL) operations' and lists specific sub-operations (viewing, granting, revoking, inheritance management). The rationale explains the consolidation and the use of 'icacls.exe'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'windows_accounts' (user accounts) or 'windows_services' (services).
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 a brief rationale for consolidation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for ACL operations on Windows but lacks 'when to use/when not to use' guidance. No alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses non-blocking execution via asyncio.to_thread, argument validation, and feedback mechanisms like ctx.info and ctx.report_progress. Annotations are absent so description carries full burden, which it adequately addresses.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with headers like RATIONALE, PATTERNS, Args, Examples. However, it is somewhat verbose; the description could be tightened without losing clarity.
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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but true) and the moderate complexity of 5 parameters, the description is mostly complete. Covers rationale, patterns, args, and examples. Could mention output format briefly.
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?
Describes each parameter in the Args section, including clarifications like 'execution environment' for action and 'truncation limit' for max_output_size. Schema coverage is 0% so description must compensate, and it does with sufficient detail.
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?
Clearly states it executes Windows commands with reliable output capture. Shows consolidated approach for PowerShell and CMD, distinguishing it from sibling tools like process_management which likely do not offer command execution.
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?
Provides examples of both PowerShell and CMD usage. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives for command execution, but patterns section implies non-shell execution and security considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that output is a Prefab UI card (likely read-only) with a plain text fallback, indicating non-destructive behavior. It doesn't disclose pagination or performance impact, but for a display tool this is adequate.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and filter, second describes output format and fallback. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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 no output schema and low complexity (2 optional params), the description covers purpose, filtering, and output format. It lacks detail on error handling or exact card content, but is sufficient for a simple display tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that 'name_filter' filters by name and 'max_processes' limits the count, adding value beyond the raw schema. Though not exhaustive, it provides sufficient meaning for most use cases.
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 verb 'display', the resource 'running processes', and the optional filter by name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'process_management' by focusing on a rich card display.
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 gives context on when to use (to display running processes, optionally filtered) and mentions fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage or compare with sibling tools like 'system_health_card' for system overview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses the dual rendering (Prefab UI or plain text fallback) which is key behavioral information for an agent to anticipate results.
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 sentences: first states what it does, second explains return format. No fluff, front-loaded with key info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no parameters, no output schema, no annotations. Description fully compensates by detailing output content and format behavior. Complete for a simple read-only card tool.
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?
No parameters (schema has empty properties). Description adds meaning by listing the metrics shown, which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies for 0-parameter tools.
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?
Description clearly states verb (Display), resource (system health card), and specific contents (CPU, memory, disk IO stats). Distinct from sibling tools like process_list_card and windows_performance which focus on different data.
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?
Description implies use when needing a quick overview of system health metrics. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned, but with 0 parameters and clear purpose, context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![windows-operations-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/windows-operations-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/windows-operations-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![windows-operations-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/windows-operations-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/windows-operations-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sandraschi/windows-operations-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server