mcp-openmediavault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or how the data is formatted (e.g., real-time vs. cached). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 key information ('Get OpenMediaVault system statistics') and provides specific examples without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity is low (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and data types but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, permissions) and output details, which are important since no annotations or output schema exist. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 adds value by specifying the types of statistics included (CPU usage, memory usage, load averages), which goes beyond the empty schema. This compensates well for the lack of 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'OpenMediaVault system statistics', with specific examples (CPU usage, memory usage, load averages). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_system_info' or 'get_cpu_temp' by focusing on performance metrics, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for real-time monitoring, historical data, or how it differs from 'get_system_info' or 'get_cpu_temp' in the sibling list. The description implies usage for system performance stats but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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