Report the running Linux kernel release (uname -r) of a specified server, so AI agents can verify kernel versions without raw SSH access.
Report the running kernel release (uname -r) of a Linux server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | Yes | the inventory server name to check |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes | ||
| kernel_release | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Report' implies a read-only, non-mutating call and the command is disclosed, but there is no mention of permission requirements or remote-execution caveats. Adequate for a trivial read, but thin.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no waste; the parenthetical command is the most useful token in the definition and is included without padding.
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?
A single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema that carries the return values. The description covers the essential framing (Linux, kernel release), though it could note that the target must be a reachable inventory server.
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% and the single parameter 'server' is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the framing that the server is Linux rather than any new parameter-level detail.
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?
States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('the running kernel release'), with the exact command (`uname -r`) as ground truth, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like uptime or cisco_version. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so a 4 rather than 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the 'of a Linux server' qualifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance (e.g., vs uptime or cisco_version). The agent can infer intent but must do so itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.