Retrieve live CPU, RAM, and uptime metrics for one application, or for all applications when no ID is specified. Monitor resource usage to detect performance problems.
Live status (CPU, RAM, uptime) of an application; without id, of all of them. (scope: apps:read)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Application ID | |
| workspace_id | No | ID of the workspace that owns the resource, if any |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful detail beyond that: the return payload ('CPU, RAM, uptime'), the all-applications default, and the required scope.
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?
A single sentence delivers the core resource, the concrete fields returned, the conditional behavior, and the permission scope. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 read-only tool with only two documented parameters, the description plus schema fully covers what the agent needs: what to pass, what comes back, and the scope. The annotations handle the safety semantics, so no further caveats are required.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the optional 'id' parameter by explaining that its absence returns status for all applications, going beyond the schema's bare 'Application ID' label.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('get app status') and concretely defines the output (CPU, RAM, uptime). It also distinguishes the no-id behavior ('of all of them'), distinguishing it from related tools like get_app or list_apps.
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?
It makes the device clear: call with an id for a single application, or omit id for all applications. It also states the permission scope ('apps:read'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditional id behavior gives sufficient usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.