dpanel_system_infoRetrieve DPanel version, runtime details, Docker environment status, and data mount info for troubleshooting, audits, or setup checks.
DPanel 系统信息：版本、运行环境、Docker 环境状态、数据挂载。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It is a zero-parameter lookup, and the enumerated fields imply a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but the description never states that it is read-only or whether any authentication/permission context is required.
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 with the resource front-loaded and the covered facets listed as a colon-delimited set. Nothing is wasted, though the list-style fragment is terse rather than maximally informative.
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 zero-parameter signature means no invocation details are missing. For a simple system-info getter, the description is sufficient, with only the safety/read-only framing left implicit.
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, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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?
Names the resource (DPanel system) and enumerates the specific facets covered: version, runtime environment, Docker environment status, and data mounts. This separates it from siblings like dpanel_system_usage and dpanel_system_stat_list, which cover usage metrics and statistics rather than static environment facts.
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 scope of the tool implies when it applies (a general environment/version lookup), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer the fit, but must make the routing decision itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.