TrendRadar MCP Server

by 17191004

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_system_status

Retrieve current system health, version, data statistics, and cache status in JSON to verify service operational status at a glance.

Instructions

获取系统运行状态和健康检查信息

返回系统版本、数据统计、缓存状态等信息

Returns: JSON格式的系统状态信息

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_system_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv6.10.0Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a read-only operation through '获取' and '返回', and lists what data is returned. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, or disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, but somewhat repetitive: '返回系统版本、数据统计、缓存状态等信息' and 'Returns: JSON格式的系统状态信息' overlap. Given that an output schema exists, the final 'Returns' line adds marginal value and could be trimmed.

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?

This is a simple parameterless status tool with an output schema, and the description covers what the status includes and the return format. However, it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to overlapping siblings and does not compensate for the absence of annotations with additional behavioral context.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, which is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: '获取系统运行状态和健康检查信息' (get system running status and health check info) and lists concrete contents (system version, data statistics, cache status). This is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_storage_status or check_version beyond the broad scope.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as get_rss_feeds_status, get_storage_status, get_current_config, or check_version. The description implies general system status retrieval but provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.