get_system_infoRetrieve a Mac's key system details: model, chip, macOS version, user, uptime, low power mode, local IP, and current time.
Nombre de la Mac, modelo, chip, versión de macOS, usuario, tiempo encendida, modo de bajo consumo, IP local y hora actual.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces a safe, read-only behavior by listing the exact data returned. Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive, and it does so concretely. It does not go into format, units, or potential delays, but for a simple system summary this is acceptable.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the full list of returned attributes. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, with no filler or repetition of the title/name. It is concise without being under-specified.
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 zero-parameter, read-only info retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete: it lists exactly what the agent will get back. Slight gaps remain around units or formats (e.g., how uptime is expressed, whether low-power mode is a boolean), but no output schema or richer context was provided. This is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it does not attempt to invent any. The schema fully covers the empty parameter list, so nothing is missing.
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 enumerates the system attributes returned (Mac name, model, chip, macOS version, user, uptime, low-power mode, local IP, current time), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but the list itself unambiguously signals a read-only system information retrieval operation. It is distinct from the specialized sibling tools because it aggregates many system-level facts.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_* tools or the power-action tools. There is no explicit 'use this for general system info, use get_cpu/get_battery for specific metrics' routing. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.