system_infoRetrieve current system information from LibreNMS to monitor device health, OS version, and uptime in one API call.
Get system info from LibreNMS.
Returns: dict: The JSON response from the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the response is a dict/JSON from the API, which is minor but not contradictory. It does not disclose additional behavioral details like authentication needs or what 'system info' includes.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional return-type line is brief and adds useful information without bloating the definition.
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-parameter, read-only tool, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks any guidance on what 'system info' encompasses or when to select this over other getter tools, so an agent may not fully understand its scope of applicability.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 identifies the operation as retrieving system info from LibreNMS, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but 'system info' is distinct enough from the many alert/device/port getters in the sibling list.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. The description only states what the tool does and gives no context about which scenarios call for system_info versus other list/get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.