stack_snapshotFetch a raw snapshot of Ollama endpoints, models, GPUs, and tailnet for health checks; specify one node or omit for all.
The raw snapshot the checks read: Ollama endpoints, loaded models, GPUs, tailnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | one node name; omit for all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and mutation profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content scope (what the snapshot contains) but says nothing about response size, cost, or freshness beyond what the annotations imply.
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 compact clause with no filler, and the content list is front-loaded immediately after the resource noun. It is slightly telegraphic (a noun phrase without a verb), which costs a point on readability but not on efficiency.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by enumerating the snapshot's contents. For a zero-required-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is close to complete; only return format/size details are missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single optional `node` parameter is documented in-schema as 'one node name; omit for all.' The description adds no additional meaning about the node parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource precisely — a raw stack snapshot covering Ollama endpoints, loaded models, GPUs, and tailnet — so an agent knows exactly what data surface this tool exposes. The phrase 'the checks read' implicitly distinguishes it from the stack_health sibling (raw data vs. derived checks), though it never names that sibling outright.
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?
Usage is only implied: by framing itself as 'the raw snapshot the checks read,' it hints that an agent should call this when it wants underlying data rather than a health verdict. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (stack_health, explain) to route between.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.