Get live CPU core frequencies in MHz and scaling governors for each core. Monitor processor performance and power state directly from a Linux desktop.
Retrieve live CPU core frequencies (MHz) and scaling governors across CPU cores.
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavioral safety itself; 'Retrieve live' indicates a read-only, current-data operation. However, it does not cover edge behavior such as offline cores, error conditions, or the exact output format.
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?
One focused sentence with the core information front-loaded: action, subject, units, and scope. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 parameterless read-only sensor tool with no output schema, the essential invocation information is present. It stops short of describing the exact return shape, but the simplicity of the tool makes that a minor gap.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden to compensate for. The description adds useful units (MHz) and the data type (governors), meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 identifies a specific action ('Retrieve'), a concrete resource ('CPU core frequencies (MHz) and scaling governors'), and scope ('across CPU cores'). It is immediately distinguishable from the broader sibling sensors_get_telemetry.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is named even though sensors_get_telemetry could overlap. Intended usage is only implicit in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.