service_statusCheck systemd status for PostgreSQL, Valkey, or Caddy on your host. Read-only, with service names limited to these three.
Report systemd status for PostgreSQL, Valkey, or Caddy on the configured host. The service name is restricted to this allowlist and no changes are made.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes |
| 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?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'no changes are made' (redundant with annotations) and the allowlist (more parameter-related). No additional behavioral context such as error handling, authentication, or rate limits is provided.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. No extraneous information or repetition.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, allowed inputs, and read-only nature. It does not describe output format, but the output schema handles that. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisite configuration, though 'configured host' implies it.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by naming the three allowed services and explicitly stating the allowlist restriction. This adds human-readable meaning beyond the bare enum in the 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?
The description states a specific action ('Report systemd status') on a defined resource ('PostgreSQL, Valkey, or Caddy on the configured host'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling deployment/provisioning tools by focusing on read-only status reporting.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need status for the listed services) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. The allowlist restriction is a constraint, not a routing to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.