Filesystem MCP

monitor_get_performance_metrics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed CPU, memory, swap, disk I/O, and network I/O counters to monitor system performance and resource usage.

Instructions

Detailed CPU times, memory, swap, disk I/O, and network I/O counters.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "result": {"cpu_times": {...}, "virtual_memory": {...}, "swap_memory": {...}, "disk_io": {...}, "net_io": {...}}}

Examples

monitor_get_performance_metrics()

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "monitor_get_performance_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context via the Return Format block, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or other operational behavior beyond that.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence, then provides return format and an example. It is appropriately short, though the Return Format block is somewhat redundant given that an output schema already exists.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only metrics tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. Its main gap is the lack of sibling differentiation, which would help an agent choose this aggregated performance tool over the narrower CPU, memory, disk, or network tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description implicitly confirms this with the empty-call example monitor_get_performance_metrics().

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ("get performance metrics") and names the concrete counter categories: CPU times, memory, swap, disk I/O, and network I/O. It does not differentiate this aggregated performance view from sibling tools like monitor_get_cpu_info, monitor_get_memory_info, monitor_get_disk_usage, or monitor_get_network_info.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many narrower monitor_get_* siblings. It states what data is returned but provides no usage context, alternatives, or exclusions.

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