Retrieve PiKVM version, hardware, health (throttling, temperature), name, and selected system fields to inspect device status and diagnose issues.
Show PiKVM details: version, hardware, health (throttling, temperature), name.
fields: any of auth, extras, fan, hw, meta, system (comma separated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | system,hw,meta | |
| server | No | ||
| max_chars | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 full burden. 'Show' implies a read, which is helpful, but it says nothing about whether output is truncated (the max_chars default of 12000 is undisclosed), how multiple servers are handled, or any auth requirements for the auth/fields option.
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 lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the parameter hint. No filler text; the only weakness is that the fields hint is terse to the point of missing the other parameters.
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 values need not be explained, and the content list is adequate. But for a tool that exposes server targeting and output truncation, those behaviors are left unaddressed, and the overlap with sibling info tools is unresolved.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'fields' parameter well (valid values and comma-separated syntax), but 'server' and 'max_chars' are never mentioned, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 verb and resource ('Show PiKVM details') and enumerates the content returned: version, hardware, health, name. That is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as pikvm_status and pikvm_system_info.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than pikvm_status, pikvm_system_info, or pikvm_config_read, all of which plausibly return similar data. The fields list implies usage but leaves the agent to infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.