Fetch a consolidated status view of monitored hosts, current problem categories, and events from the last 24 hours. Optionally include offline or disabled hosts for a complete snapshot.
查看主机、统一当前问题分类及最近二十四小时事件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_offline | No | 列出离线主机列表（默认True） | |
| include_disabled | No | 列出停用主机列表（默认False，只显示统计数字） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states what it does without disclosing whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or any rate limits. It does not clarify the exact meaning of 'unify current issue categories' or the response format, leaving behavioral traits largely unspecified.
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 concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it is somewhat terse and could be structured to highlight the primary purpose more clearly, but it earns a 4 for being appropriately brief.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema and only two boolean parameters, the description is moderately complete, but it fails to explain the relationship between the parameters and the result, or what 'unify current issue categories' concretely returns. The output schema may compensate, but the description remains vague on the tool's exact behavior.
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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents include_offline and include_disabled. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a clear verb (查看) and resource (主机), and adds that it also covers problem classification and recent 24-hour events. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like host_get or event_get by implying an aggregated quick status view, though the phrase '统一当前问题分类' is somewhat ambiguous.
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 such as host_get, event_get, or get_problem_summary. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where quick_status is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.