Retrieve system information about OS, RAM, CPU, and disk to diagnose and monitor system health.
Get system information (OS, RAM, CPU, Disk).
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": "system_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning safety, side effects, or what the returned information looks like. While a system info getter is likely read-only, this is not explicitly conveyed.
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, efficient sentence that names the resource and the specific types of system information. There is no redundancy, and every component adds value.
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 tool with no parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It lists the main categories of information. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning what format the output takes or whether it is a live snapshot, but this is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.
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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist, and the description adds appropriate clarity by naming the information categories.
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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get system information' and enumerates the key categories (OS, RAM, CPU, Disk). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_processes or get_dependencies, which focus on narrower system aspects.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states the action without any context about situation or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.