Retrieve system load averages for 1, 5, and 15 minutes to monitor CPU workload and system performance. Returns data in multiple formats like JSON or YAML.
Retrieves system load averages (1m, 5m, 15m). See cpu/list for hardware topology.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output_format | No | Desired output format (e.g. json, yaml, table, wide). Defaults to text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Retrieves' signals a read-only operation and the data points are clear, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, permission requirements, or output behavior beyond the schema. This is adequate for a simple query tool but not richly transparent.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling pointer to cpu/list adds routing value without unnecessary detail.
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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what is retrieved and provides sibling context. There is no output schema, so a slightly deeper statement about return values or formatting would make it fully complete, but the current description is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 the single output_format parameter is already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 a specific verb ('Retrieves'), a specific resource ('system load averages'), and the exact data points (1m, 5m, 15m). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling cpu/list by explicitly noting that cpu/list covers hardware topology, making the tool's scope unambiguous.
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 clearly implies this tool is for load averages and points to cpu/list as the alternative for hardware topology. It provides useful context for choosing between siblings, though it does not enumerate explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.