resource_governor_statusRetrieve throttling configuration, active heavy operations, and queued work to assess current resource limits and pending load.
Return automatic throttling configuration, active heavy operations and queued work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | No | ||
| deviceName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what is actually returned (throttling config, heavy operations, queued work), but says nothing about scoping behavior or whether the device params change the result set.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the return content with no filler. Efficient, though there is no structural separation of scope or usage constraints.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values, and does so at a high level. However it omits device-scoping semantics and any usage context, leaving gaps for a tool with two undocumented parameters.
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?
Two device-scoping parameters (deviceId, deviceName) at 0% schema coverage are never mentioned in the description. It is unclear whether they are alternatives, whether both are needed, or what happens when both are omitted (0 required params). The description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 ('Return') and enumerates the resources returned: throttling configuration, active heavy operations, and queued work. This clearly distinguishes it from the mutation sibling resource_governor_configure, though it never names that distinction explicitly.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to resource_governor_configure as the tool for changing these settings. An agent must infer the read-vs-write split from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.