Check CPU and memory usage, then send an alert email if either exceeds set thresholds. Optionally set custom CPU and memory limits.
Manually check CPU/memory and send an alert email if thresholds are exceeded. Email goes to RECIPIENT_EMAIL from .env (no prompt). Optional: cpu_threshold (default 80%), memory_threshold (default 85%).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpu_threshold | No | ||
| memory_threshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a side effect that annotations alone do not capture: it sends an email, and it specifies the destination source (.env RECIPIENT_EMAIL) and the no-prompt behavior. It also states the threshold condition explicitly. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 written sentences deliver the action, the email destination, and both parameter defaults with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded before parameter details.
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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the trigger condition, destination, and defaults. It does not describe the return value or what happens when no threshold is exceeded, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simple side-effect nature make this 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 input schema only provides property names with null defaults, so the description carries the full semantic burden. It explains that both parameters are optional thresholds and supplies meaningful defaults of 80% and 85%, adding value beyond the bare schema. It could clarify the exact accepted string format, but the core meaning is clear.
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 names a specific verb and resource: manually check CPU/memory and send an alert email when thresholds are exceeded. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like monitor_cpu, monitor_ram, and send_test_email by combining monitoring with conditional alerting.
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 word 'Manually' implies an on-demand or ad-hoc trigger, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over send_test_email, monitor_cpu, or check_alert_status. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent must infer intended usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.