Verify memory, disk, CPU load, and active renders to prevent launch conflicts.
Check memory, disk, CPU load, and conflicting renders before launch.
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": "moonray_resources"
}
}| 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. It only says 'Check...' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, potential side effects, or any dependencies. For a tool that likely inspects system state, this lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and output.
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, focused sentence that states the action and scope with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is easy to parse. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but omits key details such as the return format or how results should be interpreted. An agent may not know what to expect from the tool's response or how to act on it. The description is minimal and leaves room for ambiguity, especially without annotations to fill the 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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema provides no additional constraints. The description adequately covers the tool's input needs.
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 states the action ('Check') and the specific resources (memory, disk, CPU load, conflicting renders) and the timing ('before launch'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on resource and conflict checks, although it does not explicitly name alternatives like moonray_health. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.
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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('before launch'), indicating it is a pre-flight check. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5. The contextual cue is sufficient for an agent to infer the appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.