diagnose_linux_errorTurn a package-not-found or command-not-found error into matching packages and install guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | Yes | ||
| distro | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| release | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it produces 'install guidance' rather than performing installation, which is a useful behavioral nuance, but no further details about limitations or edge cases are provided.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and outcome, making it immediately scannable.
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?
With four parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify how optional parameters (distro, source, release) affect the diagnosis, nor does it detail the output format beyond a vague mention of 'packages and install guidance'. This is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. It only implies the 'error' parameter via the mention of error types, but says nothing about 'distro', 'source', or 'release'. This is a critical gap.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'turn' and identifies the exact resource: package-not-found or command-not-found errors, resulting in packages and install guidance. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like explain_command or suggest_fix by focusing on error diagnosis.
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?
The description clearly states when to use the tool: when encountering a package-not-found or command-not-found error. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative tool suggestions, but the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set covers many closely related operations: three 'compare_*' tools, four command-diagnostic tools, and several lookup tools that can overlap. Descriptions help but boundaries are not always obvious (e.g., identify_binary vs query_file_provides, lint_command vs suggest_fix), so an agent may select the wrong tool for a task.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun (or verb_noun_noun) pattern with snake_case. Verbs such as get, search, compare, and diagnose are used predictably, making the set's structure easy to learn.
22 tools is more than the typical well-scoped set (3-15), and the server covers a broad but unified domain. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the granularity is slightly heavy—some comparison and diagnostic tools could potentially be merged.
The tool surface covers core intelligence workflows: searching, fetching details, comparing, resolving installs, migration planning, lifecycle checks, and vulnerability lookup. Minor gaps exist such as a direct 'list_distributions' tool, but agents can work around these using existing tools.