Check disk usage on a ZimaBlade or Docker host over SSH by running df -h to monitor free space and storage.
Disk usage (df -h).
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": "zima_disk"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Referencing 'df -h' implicitly conveys a read-only, human-readable inspection operation, which is genuine context beyond the empty schema, but there is no explicit statement of side-effect-free behavior, permissions, or output shape.
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?
Two words plus a parenthetical command reference; maximally front-loaded with zero waste for a trivial tool. It is arguably too terse to be called exemplary, but nothing is redundant.
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, no-output-schema read tool, the description is minimally adequate. The 'df -h' reference hints at the return format, but the agent gets no explicit statement of what fields or host scope to expect.
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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to explain. It neither misleads nor needs to compensate.
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 names a specific resource (disk usage) and pins it to a known command (df -h), which lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like zima_top, zima_docker_stats, and zima_load without opening a schema. It is not a bare tautology, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. The agent must infer that this is the tool for checking host disk space rather than container or resource stats; nothing in the text guides that choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.