Retrieve system status for channels, memory, timers, and queue to monitor key metrics and troubleshoot issues.
Get system status (channels, memory, timers, queue)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read operation ('Get') and hints at the type of data returned, but does not detail side effects, performance characteristics, or system dependencies. For a simple status tool, this is acceptable but not enriched.
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, front-loaded sentence that lists key aspects of the status. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a basic status check. It specifies the main categories of information returned, though it does not elaborate on what 'system' refers to or how the status is structured, which is a minor gap.
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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('system status'), listing relevant components (channels, memory, timers, queue). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_events or ha_states, which target different resources.
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 through its name and content but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of context in which the status is needed, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.