Inspect a PiKVM target’s ATX power, streamer screen, HID keyboard/mouse, and MSD virtual-drive status in one call to verify health and diagnose remote-access issues.
One look at the target machine: power (ATX), screen (streamer), keyboard and mouse (HID), and virtual drive (MSD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the call aggregates four distinct subsystems (ATX, streamer, HID, MSD). However, it never states that it is a read-only operation, what happens when a subsystem is unreachable, or that output may be truncated by max_chars.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the overview intent and then lists the covered subsystems. No filler, though the fragment style ('One look at...') costs a bit of precision.
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 subsystem list covers what is returned. The gap is the two undocumented parameters and the absence of any safety/behavior notes on a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, and it does not — neither the 'server' selector (which PiKVM target) nor 'max_chars' (truncation limit) is mentioned. An agent cannot tell from the description how to target a specific host or control output size.
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 enumerates exactly what the status covers (ATX power, streamer screen, HID keyboard/mouse, MSD virtual drive), which makes the resource and its scope concrete. The verb is only implied by 'one look,' and no sibling (e.g. pikvm_power, pikvm_system_info, pikvm_snapshot) is named to sharpen the distinction, keeping it short of a 5.
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 aggregate status versus single-subsystem siblings like pikvm_power or pikvm_msd, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the enumerated subsystems.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.