local-computer-full-access-mcp

by venkey123456789

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: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: file/directory manipulation, process control, system status, and command execution. Binary and text variants are clearly differentiated, and there is no overlap between list, read, write, replace, copy, move, and delete functions.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_directory, read_text_file, copy_path, terminate_process). A couple of tools like pc_status and file_info use noun-based names, but they are still clear and the overall convention remains recognizable and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 18 tools, the set is well-scoped for a full-access local computer server. It covers file operations, process management, and system inspection without being bloated or sparse, and each tool serves a necessary role.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides broad lifecycle coverage for files and processes, including read, write, replace, copy, move, delete, and search. The run_command tool acts as a fallback for arbitrary system actions, though a few conveniences like environment variable or service management are missing.
Average 3.8/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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?
The only behavioral hint is 'This modifies the computer,' which is vague and does not disclose specifics like side effects on existing directories, default creation of parents, or error behavior. With no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient transparency.
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 extremely short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the second sentence 'This modifies the computer' adds little value and could be omitted, making it less tight than a perfect score.
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?
The tool has three parameters, one required, and the description is minimal. It does not cover parameter semantics, default behaviors, or potential errors, making it incomplete for safe and correct usage despite an output schema being present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It provides no explanation of what 'path', 'parents', or 'exist_ok' do, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a directory.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_text_file or copy_path. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on how the parameters (parents, exist_ok) affect behavior. Lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
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 fully disclose behavior. It states 'Read-only' but does not specify whether symlinks are followed, what metadata fields are returned, or error behavior for nonexistent paths. This leaves important ambiguities for an agent.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every word earns its place and the structure is immediately scannable.
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 an output schema, so return structure is covered. Given 1 parameter, low complexity, and clarity of purpose, the description is mostly adequate, but missing usage guidance and symlink behavior prevent full 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies that `path` refers to a file, directory, or symbolic link, but does not clarify path format (absolute/relative), allowed filesystems, or symlink resolution. Minimal added meaning over the schema's bare 'Path' title.
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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'one file, directory, or symbolic link', clearly distinguishing from siblings like read_text_file (content) and list_directory (directory contents). The scope is precise and actionable.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives is given. The read-only metadata focus implies usage for inspecting path properties without reading content, but exclusions or alternatives are not named.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions returning the PID and log path, which is useful, and indicates the process runs in the background. However, it does not state side effects, permission requirements, or that the process will continue after the call. The phrase 'FULL-ACCESS tool' is vague and lacks detail.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and return values. However, the trailing 'FULL-ACCESS tool.' adds little value and could be seen as filler, slightly reducing the score from a perfect 5.
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?
The tool starts a background process, which has significant operational implications (lifecycle, checking status, cleanup) that are not addressed. The description does mention the return values (PID and log path), and an output schema exists, but the overall context is incomplete given the complexity and the presence of related process management siblings.
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 only conceptually references the 'command' parameter but does not explain cwd, shell, or environment, leaving the agent without guidance for these fields. The description adds minimal parameter semantics.
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 tool's function: starting a long-running command in the background and returning its PID and log path. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_command (foreground) and list_processes/terminate_process (management).
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 phrase 'long-running' and 'in the background' implies usage for asynchronous tasks, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like run_command for foreground tasks. The context is present but at an implied level.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It transparently states the side effect ('This modifies the computer') and the overwrite requirement. However, it does not disclose behaviors like parent directory creation, encoding handling, or error behavior when overwrite is false on an existing file.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediate safety/side-effect warning. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.
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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers core purpose and a critical behavioral caveat, but given the tool's complexity and lack of parameter semantics, the overall context is only minimally viable. Gaps remain around encoding, parent creation, and failure 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%, and the description only adds meaning to one parameter (overwrite). It clarifies that overwrite=true is required for existing files, but fails to explain path, content, encoding, or create_parents semantics. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.
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 clear verb+resource: 'Create or overwrite a text file.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying text file behavior and overwrite semantics, which separates it from binary write or in-place edit 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?
It provides a key usage condition ('Existing files require overwrite=true') but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over alternatives like replace_text or write_binary_file_base64. The usage is implied by the purpose, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation modifies the computer and that existing destinations require overwrite=true, which is a key safeguard. However, it does not explain consequences such as the source path being removed, permission requirements, or error behavior when overwrite is false.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary operation. Every word adds value, including the warning about overwrite.
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 description covers the core operation and a critical condition (overwrite), and an output schema exists to describe returns. Yet, it omits details like recursive moves, cross-filesystem behavior, and failure semantics, which are important for a mutating operation with no annotations.
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 the description must compensate. It explains the overwrite parameter's behavior ('Existing destinations require overwrite=true') and clarifies that source can be a file or directory. Source and destination parameters are not further elaborated beyond their names, leaving some ambiguity about path formats.
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 tool moves or renames a file or directory, which is a specific verb+resource operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_path and delete_path. The phrase 'This modifies the computer' reinforces its mutating role.
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 moving or renaming paths, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like copy_path or delete_path. It does provide a condition (overwrite=true when destination exists), which gives some usage context, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries some burden. It discloses 'Read-only', which is a safety trait, and 'line-window controls' adds behavioral context about reading subsets of lines. However, it does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or what happens if the file is missing, leaving some gaps for a mutation-free read operation.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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 presence of an output schema, return values are already documented. However, the description does not cover encoding options, default line limits, or edge cases. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves room for more detail on parameter behavior and error scenarios.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'line-window controls', which conceptually explains start_line and max_lines, but it does not elaborate on encoding or the exact semantics of each parameter. The parameter names and defaults are self-explanatory, but the description adds only partial value.
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 tool reads a text file, with a specific resource (text file) and distinguishes it from siblings like read_binary_file_base64 by mentioning 'line-window controls'. It is specific and action-oriented.
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 reading text files with line-window controls, which hints at when to use it (e.g., for large files or targeted sections). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like read_binary_file_base64 or file_info, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE; may cause data loss' and mentions force-kill and optional descendant termination. This discloses the key safety concern, though it could add details about irreversibility or permissions.
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?
The description is a single, well-front-loaded sentence that states the action and the critical warning. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
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 lack of annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the destructive nature and the optional children option, but does not address potential errors, permission requirements, or the exact behavior of 'force'. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more behavioral detail would improve 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the 'force' parameter via 'force-kill' and 'include_children' via 'optionally its descendants', but does not clearly map these to the parameter names or explain defaults/behavior. The pid parameter is left entirely to the schema.
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 action ('Terminate or force-kill a process') and the scope ('optionally its descendants'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_processes and start_process by naming the specific verb and resource.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes what the tool does, with no explicit usage context or comparison to 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?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses the critical behavioral trait of being read-only, which is essential for an agent to know this is a safe operation. It also clarifies that only UTF-8-compatible content is searchable, adding useful constraint information beyond the schema.
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?
The description is one dense sentence with essential information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and adds the important 'Read-only' note, with no redundant phrasing.
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 description covers the core purpose and safety but lacks sufficient detail on parameters like glob, case sensitivity, and result limits, which are not documented in the schema. Given the parameter count and zero schema descriptions, the description is adequate but leaves gaps for correct invocation.
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?
The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the role of 'root' ('below a root directory'), 'query' ('search filenames... text contents'), and hints at 'search_contents' via 'optionally'. However, it fails to explain 'glob', 'case_sensitive', 'max_results', and 'max_file_bytes', leaving those parameters ambiguous.
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 tool's function: searching filenames and optionally UTF-8-compatible text contents in a directory tree. The verb 'search' plus the resource ('filenames' and 'text contents') and scope ('below a root directory') make it specific, and the 'Read-only' note differentiates it from write/delete 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 for searching filenames or content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_directory or read_text_file. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'modifies the computer' (mutation) and that existing files require overwrite=true. However, it omits what happens when overwrite=false and the file exists, or details about create_parents behavior.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured.
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 output schema exists, return values are covered, but the description lacks explanation of create_parents and failure behavior when overwrite=false. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for a mutation tool with no annotations.
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%, requiring the description to compensate. It clarifies data_base64 (base64 format) and overwrite (needed for existing files), but provides no explanation for path or create_parents. The parameter meaning is only partially conveyed.
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 'Create or overwrite a binary file from base64', specifying the action, resource type, and input format. It naturally distinguishes itself from write_text_file via the binary/base64 focus.
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 provides a clear usage context: creating or overwriting binary files from base64. It also states the overwrite requirement for existing files. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like write_text_file for text files.
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 explicitly states 'Read-only', which discloses that the tool has no side effects. However, with no annotations available, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency, and it does not mention permissions, error conditions, or any special behavior beyond the read-only nature.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence and a trailing attribute. It front-loads the purpose and includes no superfluous content.
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?
For a parameterless, simple list tool with an output schema available, the description is complete enough. It states the core function and the read-only nature, and the output schema handles return value details. No additional context is necessary.
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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe and the schema is empty, leaving no ambiguity.
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 tool lists mounted disks/drives along with their capacity. This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_directory or pc_status.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely functional and does not help the agent decide between list_drives and other listing tools.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does state 'Read-only', which is a key safety signal, and mentions it returns base64. However, it doesn't explain behavior on size limits or errors, leaving some gaps.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then a purpose qualifier. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.
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?
For a simple read operation, the description covers the core purpose, the read-only nature, and the intended file type. An output schema exists, so return format is covered. The missing detail is the max_bytes threshold, which is also a parameter semantics issue.
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 for parameter meaning. It does not explain 'max_bytes' at all, and 'path' is assumed from the tool name. The description fails to add value beyond the schema for these parameters.
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 tool's action: read a binary file and return base64. It specifically distinguishes itself from text file tools by noting it's for files that cannot be handled as text, making it unique among siblings.
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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: for binary files not suitable for text handling. It implies read_text_file as the alternative for text files, though it doesn't explicitly name it or list exclusions.
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 explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait that no annotations cover (annotations are absent). This discloses that the tool has no side effects. It does not mention permissions or limitations, but the read-only statement adds significant transparency beyond the schema.
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?
The description is two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and safety hint without wasted words. It is actionable and direct.
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 is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the filter parameter semantics are ambiguous (name_filter vs. command line), and max_results is not mentioned. Given no schema description coverage, the description should provide more clarity to be fully complete.
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 mentions filtering by name or command line, but the schema only has 'name_filter' and 'max_results'. The description does not clarify how command line filtering is achieved or mention max_results at all, creating ambiguity about parameter usage.
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 'List' and the resource 'running processes', and mentions optional filtering by name or command line. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_process and terminate_process, which are action-oriented process tools.
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 phrase 'Read-only' provides clear context that this tool is for inspection, not modification, and the filtering option hints at usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the operation modifies the computer and that ambiguous matches are refused unless replace_all=true. This surfaces key failure modes and side effects, though it omits other error conditions (e.g., missing file, no match) and encoding behavior.
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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a crucial behavioral note. No unnecessary words.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the core function and a key behavioral nuance. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but absent error handling (e.g., no-match case) leaves some gaps. Still, it's adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for replace_all by explaining its role in allowing multiple matches, and 'exact text replacement' clarifies old_text/new_text semantics. However, path and encoding parameters are not explained beyond their names.
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 uses a specific verb 'Make an exact text replacement' and identifies the resource 'in a file', clearly distinguishing it from sibling file operations like read/write. It also notes the exact-match behavior, which differentiates from potential regex-based replacements.
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 exact text replacement but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like write_text_file or search_files. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that commands run with Windows account permissions and that it waits for completion, which is important context. However, it does not detail timeout behaviors, output handling, or side effects beyond the full-access warning.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then contextual warnings. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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 is complex (arbitrary command execution with full access) and has 5 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema. The description covers the essential permission and completion semantics, but could further explain safety precautions, shell selection criteria, or effects of timeout. It is adequate but not complete.
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 offers guidance only for the shell parameter ('Use shell=auto normally') and ignores cwd, environment, and timeout_seconds. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to add the needed semantic depth for most parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and states the resource ('arbitrary PowerShell/cmd/bash command') and explicitly says it waits for completion, distinguishing it from background process tools like start_process. The FULL-ACCESS note further clarifies its scope.
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?
It provides context that this is a full-access command runner that waits for completion, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like start_process or state when not to use it. The advice 'Use shell=auto normally' gives operational guidance but not alternative selection.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'This modifies the computer' (mutation) and discloses the overwrite requirement. This adds useful safety and operational context beyond the schema, though it does not cover recursion 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an essential caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description suffices for basic copy operations. However, it omits details like recursive directory copying, creation of parent directories, and error behavior when overwrite is false, leaving some operational gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'file or directory' to imply source/destination and explains the overwrite parameter's requirement. However, it does not provide detailed semantics for source and destination paths beyond their names, so compensation is partial.
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 'Copy a file or directory' with a specific verb and resource, making it clear this copies paths. This distinguishes from siblings like move_path and write_text_file, which involve moving or writing content.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (copying files or directories) and states a key condition (existing destinations require overwrite=true). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like move_path or mention when not to use it, so it misses explicit exclusions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: destructive and irreversible, and specifies what can be deleted. It does not cover edge cases like permissions or failure on non-empty dirs without recursive, but the primary risk is clearly stated.
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?
The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the destructive warning. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff.
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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and warning. It could explicitly mention that non-empty directories require recursive=true, but that is implied by 'empty directory'. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the effect of recursive=true, but missing_ok is completely unaddressed. The meaning of missing_ok (whether to error when the path is absent) is left undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a significant gap.
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 specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'file, empty directory, or directory tree', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like copy_path and move_path. The recursive condition is also clarified, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 explicitly states when recursive=true is needed for directory trees and warns that the operation is 'DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible outside backups'. This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not mention alternatives like move_path for non-destructive deletion.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' and discloses the guarding behavior of max_entries to prevent huge responses. This is concise but useful, though it could elaborate on error conditions or return format.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place by adding operational guidance.
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?
For a straightforward directory-listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameter guidance. It's complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to recursive (use only when needed) and max_entries (prevents huge responses), but path is left undefined. This is partial compensation; the schema provides titles only.
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 opens with 'List a directory,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_drives and file_info. The scope is unambiguous.
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 clear guidance on parameter usage: 'Set recursive=true only when needed' and 'max_entries prevents huge responses.' While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context from sibling tools makes the use case clear.
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 the full burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only nature and enumerates the inspected items, which is good behavioral context for a status tool. It doesn't mention rate limits or errors, but this is a simple zero-parameter status check.
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?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Inspect' and a compact list of inspected components. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema available, the description covers what is inspected and confirms the read-only nature. The sibling list shows this is the only server-status probe, so context is complete.
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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter details, but that's unnecessary here. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and enumerates exactly what is inspected (MCP server, computer identity, access mode, roots, endpoint, audit-log location). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling file/process tools by focusing on server-level metadata and explicitly stating 'Read-only.'
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 clear context for when to use this tool—when you need to inspect server identity, access mode, roots, endpoint, or audit-log location. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, so it's not a full 5.
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

local-computer-full-access-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![local-computer-full-access-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/venkey123456789/local-computer-full-access-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/venkey123456789/local-computer-full-access-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![local-computer-full-access-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/venkey123456789/local-computer-full-access-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/venkey123456789/local-computer-full-access-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/venkey123456789/local-computer-full-access-mcp'

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