mcp-openmediavault

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is retrieved but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, its rate limits, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with system-level data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get OpenMediaVault system information') and provides specific examples without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to clarity, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for operational use. It lacks details on return format, error handling, or authentication requirements, which are important for system-level tools. However, it sufficiently covers the purpose for a simple read operation.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('OpenMediaVault system information'), listing concrete examples like hostname, version, CPU model, uptime, and memory. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_system_stats' or 'get_system_log' by focusing on general system metadata rather than performance metrics or logs.

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 usage for retrieving system metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_system_stats' (which might offer performance data) or 'get_system_log' (for logs). It lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.