Retrieve the host OS identity including distro name, kernel version, hostname, and current username to answer OS- or kernel-specific questions.
OS identity: distro name, kernel version, hostname, current username. Use for OS/kernel-specific questions. For a full device summary including hardware vendor and model, use get_device_info instead.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact data fields returned, which compensates for the absence of an output schema.
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?
Two tightly scoped sentences with zero filler. The core identity and returned fields come first, followed by usage guidance and a pointer to the sibling tool.
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 system information tool, this description is complete: it lists the returned fields, states the intended use case, and routes to the relevant sibling when more detail is needed. No critical information is missing.
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 is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document, and the description correctly focuses on output and usage instead.
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?
Though phrased as a noun rather than an imperative, it names the exact resource ('OS identity') and the specific fields returned: distro name, kernel version, hostname, and current username. It also distinguishes itself from get_device_info, so an agent can confidently tell them apart.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for OS/kernel-specific questions') and names the sibling alternative when a fuller device summary is needed. This is direct, actionable routing guidance with no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.