panel_disk_infoCheck capacity and inode usage for every mounted partition before writing large files, uploading certificates, or importing database dumps to avoid disk-full failures.
Capacity and inode usage for every mounted partition. Use before any operation that writes large files, uploads a certificate, or imports a database dump.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1-alpha.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the operational framing of checking capacity before writes, but says nothing about output shape, latency, or refresh semantics beyond what the name implies.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the usage trigger second. Every clause carries information.
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 no-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns (capacity and inode usage per mounted partition) and when it is useful. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 this is a 4. The description correctly implies the call is unscoped ('every mounted partition') and there is no parameter syntax an agent could get wrong.
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 and what it reports: capacity and inode usage for every mounted partition. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like panel_system_total (system totals), panel_network_status, or panel_mysql_status, so an agent can select it without opening a schema.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger context ('Use before any operation that writes large files, uploads a certificate, or imports a database dump'), which implicitly points at siblings like ssl_upload and db_import_sql. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming alternatives directly, but the usage condition is concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.