[Local ops] Run one allowlisted read-only status command (uptime, disk, mem, loop board). No arbitrary shell. Public Vercel returns available:false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command_id | No | uptime | disk_usage | mem_usage | always_on_status | loop_board. Omit to list options. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states read-only nature and the allowlist restriction, and reveals a key environment-dependent behavior (public Vercel returns available:false). It does not mention return format or error handling, but the read-only constraint is well covered.
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 concise – a single sentence plus a short note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Public Vercel returns available:false' clause is slightly ambiguous but not wasteful.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, scope, allowed commands, and environment constraints. Missing return format and invalid-input behavior, but the low complexity limits the need.
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 100%, with command_id already listing allowed values and noting that omission lists options. The description repeats these values without adding extra parameter-level semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's function: running one allowlisted read-only status command, and it lists specific commands (uptime, disk, mem, loop board). It also distinguishes itself from an arbitrary shell, making its scope unambiguous.
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 '[Local ops]' prefix indicates the intended environment, and 'No arbitrary shell' clarifies when not to use it. The note about public Vercel returning available:false informs deployment limitations. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like forge_status.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but there is overlap between local ops tools (gbrain_get/list/search, host_memory_get/set, forge_loop_status, list_mesh_snapshot, etc.) and public status/product tools (forge_status, popular_tools) which could confuse an agent. Descriptions help by tagging local ops, but the boundaries remain blurred.
All tool names use snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., get_product, list_live_products, csv_to_markdown). A few names like now_iso and lorem_ipsum deviate from the verb-first style, but overall the naming is predictable and consistent.
With 40 tools, the server is overloaded for a coherent set. Many are simple utility functions that could be consolidated, and the mix of generic utilities, product APIs, and local ops adds unnecessary bulk, pushing the count well above the comfortable range.
The server lacks a clear domain, making it impossible to assess lifecycle coverage. While it offers many utilities, there is no coherent surface—missing common operations for any single category (e.g., no CRUD, no file handling) and many tools feel randomly assembled rather than forming a complete workflow.