Check load average and uptime on a ZimaBlade or Docker host to see whether the machine is busy.
Load average and uptime of the box. Quick check of whether it is busy.
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_load"
}
}| 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 disclosure burden, but it does state the return content (load average and uptime), which is the main behavioral fact for a metric tool. It omits that the operation is read-only with no side effects and says nothing about output format, which is a modest gap for a zero-param probe.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the returned data before the usage hint, and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial tool, though the second sentence is somewhat colloquial rather than informative.
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-param, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly sufficient — it says what comes back. It stops short of situating the tool among its siblings (e.g. zima_top for per-process detail), so an agent lacks a complete basis for choosing this over the alternatives.
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 document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed for a box-level metric read.
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 exactly what the tool retrieves (load average and uptime) and its target (the box), so an agent knows the resource and scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling zima_top, which is also a system-level metric tool, 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?
"Quick check of whether it is busy" implies a lightweight triage use case, which is genuine guidance. However, it names no alternatives and gives no condition for preferring zima_load over zima_top or the docker-specific siblings, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.