Retrieve load average, uptime, and root-disk free space to assess system health and resource availability.
Load average, uptime, and root-disk free space.
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": "system_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists output metrics. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether root privileges are required, or how the data is returned. This lack of context is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.
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 a single, concise line that front-loads all essential information. Every word adds value, and there is no wasted text or repetition of the tool name.
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?
For a simple, zero-parameter tool, the description covers the core output adequately. However, it omits details like units (e.g., load average 1/5/15 min, disk free in bytes vs. percent), which could slightly reduce completeness in the absence of an output schema. Still, it is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There are no parameter semantics to describe, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than on input configuration.
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 clearly enumerates the exact metrics provided (load average, uptime, root-disk free space), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like daemons or listening ports. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'show', so it reads as a noun phrase rather than a direct action statement.
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 listed system metrics, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. It does hint at system health checks but falls short of clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.