Retrieve the Linux distribution and kernel version from the host system. Use it to identify the OS release for scripting, diagnostics, or compatibility checks.
Retrieves Linux distribution and kernel version.
| 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, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention output shape, default format, or potential errors. The output_format parameter is absent from the description, adding a small transparency 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning, making it highly efficient.
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 simple informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it says what is retrieved, and the parameter schema covers the configurable option. It lacks explicit read-only confirmation and output-format details beyond the schema, but nothing critical is missing 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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including examples and a default value. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.
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 and resource ('Retrieves Linux distribution and kernel version') and directly matches the tool name. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like kernel/system-control or system/packages, which address different concerns.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. With many sibling system-information tools, the agent must infer usage solely from the name and short description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.