list_system_servicesLists system services and their current status by executing a verified command, providing a clear overview for server monitoring and management.
List system services and status. Executes verified command v-list-sys-services.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | json |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| command | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small behavioral detail by stating it 'executes verified command v-list-sys-services,' but it does not disclose output structure, pagination, or potential limitations beyond what annotations and output schema provide.
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 brief and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a useful implementation detail about the verified command. No words are wasted, though it lacks a more structured presentation.
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?
The tool is simple, has one optional self-documenting parameter, and includes an output schema, so return values do not need to be explained in the description. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance or alternative routing, but overall the description is sufficient for correct selection and 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'format' parameter at all. The schema itself documents the enum values 'json' and 'plain' with a default, so the agent can still infer parameter meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List system services and status.' It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from siblings that operate on users, domains, databases, or cron jobs. The mention of the underlying verified command further confirms the exact operation.
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?
The intended use is implied by the purpose: call this tool when you need system services and their status. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool to prefer, so the agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.