Linux MCP Server

Get CPU information

get_cpu_information

Read-only

Retrieve CPU model, core count, and architecture from local or remote RHEL hosts via SSH for read-only diagnostics.

Instructions

Get CPU information.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "get_cpu_information"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	System to run on: 'localhost' for the system the MCP server runs on, or a remote host to connect to via SSH

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	No
`cpu_line`	No
`load_avg_1m`	No
`load_avg_5m`	No
`load_avg_15m`	No
`frequency_mhz`	No
`logical_cores`	No
`physical_cores`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv1.7.0Oct 3, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / host / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedInput schema / properties / host / default
```
Removed value: -null
```

changedInput schema / properties / host / description

Previous value: -"Remote host to connect to via SSH"New value: +"System to run on: 'localhost' for the system the MCP server runs on, or a remote host to connect to via SSH"

addedInput schema / properties / host / examples

Added value: +[
+  "localhost",
+  "web1.example.com"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / host / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "host"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.0Sep 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv0.1.0Mar 11, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not mention that the host may be reached over SSH, nor anything about permissions or scope of the read.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence duplicates the title and earns no informational place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with numerous similar siblings and a remote-SSH capability, the description should at least distinguish it from get_hardware_information and get_system_information, which it does not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'host' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the localhost-vs-SSH distinction and examples. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, the schema carries the burden and a 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title ('Get CPU information'), making it a tautology. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_hardware_information or get_system_information, which plausibly also surface CPU data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many overlapping siblings (get_hardware_information, get_system_information, get_memory_information). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.