cpu_statusSamples CPU utilization over a set interval and returns processor metadata and load averages to check local host performance.
Sample CPU utilization and return processor metadata and load averages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sampleMs | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| speedMHz | Yes | ||
| loadAverage | Yes | ||
| logicalCores | Yes | ||
| usagePercent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool samples utilization and returns metadata and load averages, but does not explain sampling duration, blocking behavior, or any auth/rate-limit context beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool.
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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, it omits usage guidance and parameter semantics, leaving meaningful gaps 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?
There is one parameter (sampleMs) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains its effect on the sampling window. The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.
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 specific verb + resource (sample CPU utilization) and enumerates return content (processor metadata, load averages). It is clearly distinct from siblings like memory_status and disk_status, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from broader tools such as system_info or system_health.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a CPU-specific inspection context but gives no conditions, exclusions, or routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.