arch-mcp-server

Host identity

sys_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve host identity details such as hostname, kernel, distro, architecture, uptime, virtualization, CPU cores, and memory to confirm which Linux system you are administering.

Instructions

Host identity: hostname, kernel, distro, arch, uptime, virtualization, CPU cores and memory. Call it first to learn what host you are on.

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": "sys_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. What the description adds beyond them is the returned field set, which matters because no output schema exists. It says nothing about cost, rate limits, or whether any probing occurs (e.g. virtualization detection), leaving a small gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, zero filler. The inventory of returned facts comes first and the calling instruction second, so the agent gets both purpose and trigger without scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so via the field enumeration. For a zero-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, that is nearly sufficient; only the lack of contrast with overlapping host-inspection siblings keeps it from 5.

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, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter semantics gap exists.

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 the specific resource (host identity) and enumerates the concrete facts returned: hostname, kernel, distro, arch, uptime, virtualization, CPU cores and memory. An agent can tell this is a host-inventory read. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from plausible siblings like host_capabilities or sys_status, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The line "Call it first to learn what host you are on" gives explicit sequencing guidance, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use direction an agent needs for an orientation call. It provides no when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

Deploy Server