Retrieve the current status of an IBM SVC storage system to verify system health and configuration.
Check SVC system status (lssystem)
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": "check_system_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only reveals the underlying command (lssystem) but does not state whether this operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The agent has no information on consequences.
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 very short but fits the tool's simplicity. It front-loads the action and mentions the underlying command. It could be slightly more self-contained without relying on the parentheses notation.
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 simple status check tool, the description provides adequate purpose but lacks context on output/return values, whether the command can fail, and how it differs from the sibling tool. An agent would have to guess the output format.
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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is little for the description to add. The description confirms the tool takes no input, which is useful. A baseline of 4 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 that the tool checks system status, which is a clear verb-resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this from its sibling tool 'execute_svc_command' – both could plausibly be used to run a command like lssystem, creating ambiguity.
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 'execute_svc_command'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine whether this tool is safer, more limited, or preferred for read-only queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.