Check live GPU memory and utilisation, including other users' processes, to avoid resource conflicts when scheduling shared-machine bioinformatics jobs.
Live GPU memory and utilisation (includes other users' processes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that output includes other users' processes, implying cluster-wide visibility rather than just the caller's jobs, which is genuinely valuable behavioral context. However, it says nothing about permissions, refresh/caching behavior, or whether output is a snapshot.
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 zero waste. The most important qualifier ('live') and the scope note (other users' processes) are both packed into one line.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required here, and there are no parameters. The description is nearly complete for a zero-arg read tool; the only minor gap is the absence of any usage framing relative to the job-submission siblings.
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 no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, consistent with an empty schema.
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 resource (GPU memory and utilisation) with a clear scope qualifier ('live'), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling tools (seq_stats, list_jobs, etc.). It doesn't need to name a sibling because none of the others are GPU-related, but it also doesn't explicitly say it is read-only status retrieval.
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 guidance is provided. The agent must infer that this is used to check GPU availability before submitting jobs (e.g., before predict_structure or search_homologs). There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or timing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.