common_mcp
common_mcp
하나의 도구인 get_basic_details를 노출하는 간단한 MCP 서비스입니다.
기능
stdio를 통해 MCP 서버로 실행
단일 도구 제공:
get_basic_details플랫폼, Node 버전, 아키텍처, 현재 시간 및 가동 시간 반환
includeHostname: true인 경우 호스트 이름을 선택적으로 반환
Related MCP server: System Info MCP Server
설정
npm install실행
npm startMCP 클라이언트 구성
클라이언트가 stdio 서버를 시작할 수 있도록 node를 직접 사용하세요.
Cursor
MCP 설정(또는 MCP 구성 파일) 아래에 다음을 추가하세요:
{
"mcpServers": {
"common_mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/Users/saurabhverma/Desktop/vibecoding/projects/common_mcp/server.js"
]
}
}
}Claude Desktop
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json에 다음을 넣으세요:
{
"mcpServers": {
"common_mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/Users/saurabhverma/Desktop/vibecoding/projects/common_mcp/server.js"
]
}
}
}MCP 도구 호출 예시
도구 이름: get_basic_details
입력:
{
"includeHostname": true
}서명
Saurabh Kumar
Available Tools
1 toolget_basic_detailsC
Returns basic system and runtime details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeHostname | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It only says 'returns' but does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, or any potential costs. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, very concise. But lacks structure; no additional details or sections. Adequate for a simple tool but not well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), description should still explain what 'basic system and runtime details' includes and what the return looks like. Incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not mention the 'includeHostname' parameter. No added meaning beyond what schema provides (which is just type boolean). Fails to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'returns' and resource 'basic system and runtime details', which is a clear purpose. No siblings exist to differentiate, so no issue with distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no siblings, some implied usage, but no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v1.0.0- First observed
get_basic_details
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The single tool has a clear and distinct purpose.
There is only one tool, so naming consistency is not an issue. The name 'get_basic_details' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.
Having only one tool feels thin for a server labeled 'common_mcp'. While a single tool can be appropriate for very narrow scopes, this server's name suggests a broader utility, making the count borderline.
The server only provides basic system and runtime details. For a 'common' server, one would expect additional tools for other common operations, leaving significant gaps.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Generate IDs, QR codes, and hashes, encode values, geolocate IPs, plus gated host diagnostics.
Read-only developer, date, finance, and text utilities. Authless remote MCP server by Clean.tools.
Agent utility API: 28+ free endpoints (hash, QR, DNS, scrape, JWT...) run by an autonomous AI agent.
17 Base data tools for agents over Streamable HTTP MCP. Pay per call in USDC via x402; no API key.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables interaction with the local file system and retrieval of system information. Provides tools for listing directories, reading files, getting current time, and basic greeting functionality.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables comprehensive system monitoring and diagnostics through 18 tools that provide detailed information about CPU, memory, disk usage, network interfaces, running processes, battery status, hardware details, and temperature monitoring. Allows users to query system information and performance metrics through natural language interactions.7 npmISC
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to automatically identify which machine they're working with by providing hostname detection and system information including CPU, memory, OS version, and architecture.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Node.js and TypeScript implementation that provides system information and health check tools for Claude Desktop. It serves as a boilerplate for building and integrating custom tools using the Model Context Protocol.3 npmISC