Retrieve current system diagnostics including OS, Node version, memory, and CPU info to assess the runtime environment.
Retrieves current system diagnostics including OS, Node version, memory, and CPU info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeCpu | No | Whether to include CPU architecture details | |
| includeMemory | No | Whether to include memory statistics |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Retrieves') but does not describe the return format, potential side effects, or error conditions. It adds minimal context beyond the obvious.
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 sentence that front-loads the main action and lists the key content. It is concise with no redundant information.
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 simple diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what it does but lacks usage context, output format, and any caveats. Given the low complexity, a 3 is reasonable, but it could be improved with a note on when to use it or what the response structure looks like.
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 schema covers both parameters (includeCpu and includeMemory) with clear descriptions. The description mentions memory and CPU, aligning with the parameters, but does not add any extra meaning such as defaults, dependencies, or impact of omitting them. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.
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 retrieves system diagnostics, listing specific contents (OS, Node version, memory, CPU). It is specific and unambiguous, and the sibling names (echo, my_custom_tool) suggest they serve different purposes, so the distinction is implicit.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what it does without contextual routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.