Get static GPU details like device names and models to identify the installed graphics hardware. Use when the user asks what GPU they have, not for live load monitoring.
Static GPU info: GPU device names and models. Use when the user asks WHAT GPU they have. Do NOT use for live GPU load — use monitor_gpu for that.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by emphasizing that the data is static rather than live, which is an important expectation to set. It also clarifies the scope of returned information. The annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those 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?
The description is compact: two sentences deliver the core purpose, a clear usage trigger, and a routing pointer to the alternative tool. Every sentence carries necessary information with no filler or redundancy.
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, this description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the type of data returned, and the key boundary with the live-monitoring sibling. It does not describe the exact output format or behavior when no GPU is present, but with no output schema and a simple informational purpose, this is a minor gap.
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 has zero parameters flagged, and schema description coverage is 100% for an empty schema, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to clarify.
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 tool's purpose: returning static GPU info such as device names and models. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from monitor_gpu, which prevents an agent from confusing static information collection with live monitoring.
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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('when the user asks WHAT GPU they have') and explicitly warns against using it for live GPU load, directing the agent to monitor_gpu instead. This satisfies both when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.