Inspect FreeBSD cluster status to view Raft leader, quorum members, node health, and guest counts; optionally target a specific node or login context.
Show cluster status: Raft leader, quorum members, node health, and guest counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | Target cluster node hostname or UUID. Omit for cluster-wide. | |
| context | No | Named login context from ~/.config/sylve/config.yaml. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned data (leader, quorum, health, counts), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about freshness, cost, or failure behavior when quorum is lost.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the enumerated payload after. No filler, nothing redundant.
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 usefully enumerates what the response contains, which is the right compensation. Slightly incomplete in that it doesn't clarify whether the counts are cluster-wide or per-node when the node parameter is supplied.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (node, context) are documented in the schema, including the 'Omit for cluster-wide' semantics. The description contributes no additional meaning about how node scoping affects the reported leader or quorum view.
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 (Show) and resource (cluster status), then enumerates the exact contents: Raft leader, quorum, node health, guest counts. This distinguishes it from the closest sibling sylve_cluster_resources, though it never names that sibling 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?
Usage is only implied by the content list — an agent can guess this is the overview/health call rather than a detail call, but the description gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no reference to sylve_cluster_resources or sylve_node_list as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.