Container-based MCP implementation for secure tool execution with bash, Python, file management, web browsing, knowledge base, market data, and RSS capabilities
This server has only ONE tool (health_check) with an empty input schema {}. The tool has a basic description but no input parameters to evaluate. The server itself is a container wrapper offering multiple manager-based tools (Bash, Python, File, Web, Knowledge Base, List, Market, RSS), but these are NOT registered as MCP tools in the visible code. The main.py file shows manager imports but no tool registration via @mcp.tool() decorators or explicit tool.define() calls. The 'cmcp.tools.register_all_tools()' function is imported but not shown in source, making it impossible to verify actual tool definitions. Only health_check is visible and directly registered. This server appears to be a foundational framework that SHOULD expose container management tools but does not demonstrate their actual MCP registration in the provided code.
Get server health status and system information.
Only one tool (health_check) is visible in source code. No input schema provided; tool accepts empty object {}, this violates basic schema structure.
Tool description is generic and under-specified. 'Get server health status and system information' lacks detail on WHEN to call it, WHAT it returns, and what 'system information' includes. Baselines expect 34-392 chars with clear context; this is barely 57 chars and provides no output schema documentation.
register_all_tools() function is called but not shown in source. Cannot verify that Bash, Python, File, Web, Knowledge Base, List, Market, and RSS manager tools are actually registered as MCP tools with proper schemas and descriptions. All tool definitions are hidden behind this opaque function call.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 40 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 0 | - | v1 |
No tool annotations present (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). health_check is marked Risk: READ_ONLY in the spec but this is not reflected in the tool definition as a @tool annotation or metadata field.
Output schema not documented for health_check. The function returns JSONResponse with {status, service, transport} but this is not declared in the tool definition. LLMs cannot plan downstream operations without knowing the response structure.
No error handling guidance. health_endpoint always returns {status: 'healthy'}, no documentation of failure modes, error classification, or recovery instructions. What happens if system is unhealthy? What should the LLM do?