Get CPU topology and architecture details. Use to inspect core layout, sockets, and processor model information.
Retrieves CPU topology and architecture. See cpu/load-average for current utilization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output_format | No | Desired output format (e.g. json, yaml, table, wide). Defaults to text | |
| topology_only | No | Only return basic core topology |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly address side effects, privilege requirements, or output behavior. For a simple query tool this is a moderate gap.
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 two short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful routing hint without 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?
With no output schema, the description still tells an agent what kind of data will be returned (CPU topology/architecture) and how it differs from load-average. The schema covers both optional parameters, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly without additional context.
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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about output_format or topology_only, which is acceptable because the schema covers them fully.
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 states 'Retrieves CPU topology and architecture,' a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling cpu/load-average by noting that tool covers utilization. An agent can tell what this tool is for without inspecting the schema.
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?
It explicitly directs users to cpu/load-average when current utilization is needed, providing a clear alternative for a distinct use case. This is sufficient routing guidance for a focused CPU-info tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.