Retrieves a read-only JSON report of Linux logical volumes with volume group, size, attributes, and usage data.
Read-only SysKnife action GetLvmReport. list logical volumes with VG, size, attributes, and usage as JSON (lvs) — no params; read-only
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.27.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so repeating 'read-only' twice in the description adds nothing. What little extra it provides is the JSON output format and the fact it wraps lvs; there is no disclosure of error behavior or output shape details.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with the action and resource first. It loses a point for redundancy: 'Read-only' at the start and 'read-only' at the end say the same thing, and both duplicate the annotations.
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?
For a zero-param read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what matters: the exact resource, the fields in the returned JSON, and confirmation that no arguments are needed. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case, and the description explicitly confirms 'no params' so the agent knows an empty object is a valid call. There is nothing further to disambiguate.
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 (list) and resource (logical volumes) plus the fields returned (VG, size, attributes, usage) and the underlying mechanism (lvs). The resource is clearly distinct from sibling read tools like sysknife_get_disk_usage and sysknife_get_mounts, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs LVM volume inventory. The note 'no params' usefully signals a zero-argument call, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., vs get_disk_usage) are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.