uptimeRetrieve how long a local Windows or Linux system has been running, reported in seconds, hours, and days for host health checks.
Return system uptime in seconds, hours and days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uptimeDays | Yes | ||
| uptimeHours | Yes | ||
| uptimeSeconds | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only addition is the format of the returned value (seconds, hours, days), which is minor behavioral context.
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 that conveys the resource and the unit of the result with no waste. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with complete annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate; the return format is already covered by the output schema, so the brief description loses little. It could name its sibling boundary (e.g. vs system_info) but is otherwise sufficient.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; per the rubric, a parameter-free tool has a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies the tool is argument-free.
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?
States a specific verb (Return) and resource (system uptime) and even specifies the units returned (seconds, hours, days). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling system_info, which could plausibly include uptime, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The tool's purpose is fairly self-evident from the name, but the description provides no explicit context for selecting it over system_info or system_health.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.