Linux MCP Server

Get hardware information

get_hardware_information

Read-only

Retrieve CPU, PCI, USB, and DMI hardware details from a local or remote host to diagnose device issues and verify the system's hardware configuration.

Instructions

Get hardware information such as CPU details, PCI devices, USB devices, and hardware information from DMI.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, and the description usefully enumerates the hardware data sources it surfaces. Beyond that it adds nothing behavioral — no note that the host may be reached over SSH, no indication of cost or latency for remote probes, and no hint about breadth of the payload.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for the scope of data covered rather than too long, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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 no prose explanation, and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile for a one-parameter tool. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation — an agent cannot tell from this text when to prefer it over get_cpu_information or get_system_information.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema itself already explains the 'localhost vs remote host over SSH' semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so this sits at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('hardware information') and enumerates the sub-domains (CPU, PCI, USB, DMI), so the agent knows what will be returned. However, it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like get_cpu_information or get_system_information, leaving the agent to guess at the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative even though get_cpu_information and get_system_information plausibly overlap with it. The agent receives no routing information at all.

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