ris_gpu_statusCheck per-node free and used full H100 GPUs on a Slurm GPU partition, excluding MIG slices, to identify available compute before submitting jobs.
Per-node H100 free/used on the GPU partition (full H100s only; MIG slices excluded).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | Named profile from ~/.risbridge-mcp/config.json. Omit for the default. | |
| partition | No | general-gpu |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add scope constraints (full H100s only, MIG slices excluded) which is behavioral context. It does not cover return format or whether data is cached/realtime, hence a 3.
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?
A single tight sentence with front-loaded resource and a parenthetical scoping clause. No waste.
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?
No output schema, so the description should describe return shape (per-node values, granularity) and profile/partition meaning. It omits both, leaving key calling details undocumented for a 2-param tool.
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 coverage is 50%. The description never mentions profile or partition, or the default partition=general-gpu, and doesn't clarify the meaning of partitions like general-preempt-gpu vs the default. With half the parameters undocumented, the description fails to compensate.
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?
States a specific resource (per-node H100 free/used) and scope (GPU partition, full H100s only, MIG excluded). Clear verbless but useful read. No explicit sibling differentiation, though among many siblings (ris_worker_status, ris_list_partitions) this reads distinctly about H100 availability.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as ris_list_partitions or ris_worker_status, and no conditions for choosing this tool. Only implied usage from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.