omv-mcp

by vnaveenb

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but smart_status vs smart_health and disk_usage vs storage_summary overlap enough to cause confusion. Overall, an agent can usually tell tools apart with careful reading.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming follows a loose pattern: list_* for enumeration and verb_object for actions, but there are outliers like docker_system_df, omv_rpc, cpu_temp, and container_stats. Mixed conventions are still readable but not consistently applied.
Tool Count2/5
48 tools is far beyond the typical 3-15 range and the 25+ threshold. The high granularity (e.g., six SMART-specific tools) feels excessive, especially since generic run_command and omv_rpc already exist for arbitrary operations.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers monitoring and lifecycle operations for Docker/stacks and system info, but lacks CRUD for OMV shared folders, users, groups, and SMB shares. The unrestricted omv_rpc and run_command fill gaps but bypass the safer specific tools.
Average 3.7/5 across 48 of 48 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, the description only provides a scope filter ('non-system OMV groups') and does not describe return format, side effects, or any other behavioral traits. It is entirely missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to be a complete sentence, under-specifying the tool's function. It is not conciseness but under-specification; similar to the 'Process' example, it earns a 2.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity (zero params), the description is incomplete as it does not explain what 'non-system OMV groups' means, what output the agent should expect, or any operational context. With no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more; instead, it provides almost nothing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 add parameter-level meaning, but no parameters exist to clarify. It cannot detract beyond the baseline for zero-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Non-system OMV groups' is a noun phrase without a verb; it does not explicitly state that the tool lists groups. It adds a scope qualifier but relies on the tool name to imply the action. This is closer to a tautology (restating the name) than a clear purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_users or list_shared_folders, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the compose file is, without mentioning that the operation is read-only, what happens if the stack_id is invalid, or any other effects. This is minimal and under-specified for a tool with no annotation context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase, front-loaded with the key information ('full compose file'). It wastes no words, though it is perhaps too terse and not a complete sentence, which limits its clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), but the description is too brief to be complete. It lacks any usage context, prerequisites, or notes about the return value, relying entirely on the schema. Given the absence of annotations, the description should do more.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 stack_id parameter at all. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory, but the description fails to differentiate it or provide any additional context, leaving the agent to infer the relationship between 'Portainer stack' and 'stack_id'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource: the full compose file for a Portainer stack. It avoids mere tautology and conveys the tool's object, though it lacks an explicit verb ('gets' or 'retrieves') and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_stacks or update_stack.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., needing a stack_id), or how it differs from alternatives like list_stacks or restart_stack. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description provides no behavioral traits such as read-only status, return format, authentication requirements, or side effects. It is merely a noun phrase, offering no transparency into how the tool behaves beyond the inferred listing action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but it is under-specified as a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It conveys minimal information and lacks a clear structural subject-verb-object form, making it more under-specified than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the bar for completeness is lower. However, the description still leaves ambiguity about what 'non-system' means and what the output looks like. It is minimally viable but lacks enough context to fully characterize the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of the (empty) parameter set. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource as 'Non-system OMV users', and the tool name 'list_users' provides the action, making the purpose reasonably clear. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_groups' by focusing on users and the 'non-system' scope. However, the description is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, so it lacks an explicit verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists output fields and gives no information about side effects, required permissions, or return format. While 'list' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using a single line and front-loading the key resource. However, it is under-specified and reads more like a comment than a functional description, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless list tool, the description provides the essential output fields, which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. However, it lacks context about ordering, filtering, or relationship to sibling network tools, making it minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, warranting a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information but is not required to do so for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Docker networks (id, name, driver, scope)' identifies the resource and fields but lacks an explicit verb. The tool name 'list_networks' supplies the action, but the description itself is a noun phrase, making it vague without the name context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'docker_system_df' or 'network_info'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states what the tool is about. It does not mention read-only nature, return format, permission requirements, or any operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it is slightly under-specified, but for a simple list tool with no parameters this length is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., disk names, sizes, models). The single noun phrase does not provide enough context for an agent to effectively use the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no schema information is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource as 'Physical disk devices known to OMV,' which is clear, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from the sibling 'list_block_devices.' The action is only implied by the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_block_devices or list_filesystems. There are no usage scenarios, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only listing, describe the return format, or mention any permissions or side effects. The brief phrase only lists data fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the resource name and key fields, though it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces structural quality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explicitly state that the tool returns a list of shared folders with the specified properties. It currently only provides a noun phrase, omitting the action and any context about scope or return structure. This is minimal and barely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond what is already absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (OMV shared folders) and enumerates expected output fields (name, path, device), making the tool's purpose fairly clear. It relies on the tool name for the verb 'list' and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_smb_shares, though without explicit contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_smb_shares or list_filesystems. There are no stated prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what 'configured' means (e.g., from config vs. live daemon), or any permission requirements. The word 'configured' hints at a static config read but adds little context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single four-word phrase with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately minimal for a parameterless list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description does not explain what the returned share list contains (e.g., names, paths, options), nor does it provide any usage context. There is no output schema, so the description should compensate but does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully complete and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource as 'Configured SMB/CIFS shares,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_disks or list_shared_folders. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'list' to convey the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context such as 'use this for SMB-specific shares' compared to list_shared_folders. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that systemctl is used and that it's fast, but doesn't mention whether it's non-destructive, what the output looks like, or how errors are handled. This is thin for a command that executes system queries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids unnecessary detail. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the key default behavior and the underlying command, but lacks output format details and any guidance on when to use it. It's a minimum viable description but leaves some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description's note that it defaults to a common NAS set if none given adds meaningful context for the 'units' parameter. However, it doesn't clarify the expected format or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks systemd active/enabled state per unit and mentions systemctl, which indicates a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like service_logs, though the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as service_logs or run_command. The only contextual hint is that it defaults to a common NAS set if no units are given, which implies usage but not when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only mentions the source plugin and unit but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or any potential errors. For a sensor read, minimal behavioral detail is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the key information (CPU temperature in °C). It earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple, it has no output schema. The description tells what it does and the unit, but not the exact return type or any additional context (e.g., whether it's the current temperature or average). For a minimal tool, this is adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter details, but since there are none, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'CPU temperature in °C', clearly identifying the resource (CPU temperature) and unit. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'reports', but the meaning is unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'disk_temperatures' by specifying CPU and mentioning the OMV CpuTemp plugin.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sensors_readout' or 'disk_temperatures'. The description is purely descriptive with no context or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields (name, driver, mountpoint) and gives no indication that the operation is read-only, whether it requires a running Docker daemon, or what happens on failure. This is minimal for a tool that inspects system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core resource name and compactly provides the output fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no params and no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields. However, it lacks any indication of scope (e.g., all volumes), potential errors, or relationship to sibling Docker commands, making it minimally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and there are none to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Docker volumes (name, driver, mountpoint)' clearly identifies the resource (Docker volumes) and the returned fields. The verb 'list' is implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description, but it is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_containers or list_disks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context with sibling storage or Docker tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the source (OMV) and scope (per-device overall health), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format looks like, or any limitations. For a status tool, more transparency about the return shape would be valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value: it names the domain (S.M.A.R.T.), the scope (per device), the result (overall health status), and the source (OMV). No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives the essential purpose and data source, making it minimally viable. However, it lacks differentiation from the sibling smart_health tool and does not describe the return value structure, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema is fully documented. The description's mention of 'per device' is slightly ambiguous without a device parameter, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and no further parameter semantics are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides a S.M.A.R.T. overview with overall health status per device, sourced from OMV. This is specific enough, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool smart_health, which likely serves a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like smart_health, smart_attributes, or smart_selftest_log. The phrase 'overview per device' implies a broad status-check use case, but there is no explicit when/when-not or reference to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 lists the output fields and does not explain whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, contacts the Docker daemon, or has any side effects. The minimal detail gives limited behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact phrase, 'Docker images (repo, tag, id, size)', with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the resource immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list operation, the description provides the essential output fields and resource. While it could be more explicit by stating 'Lists all Docker images', the current description is adequate given the tool's simplicity and the absence of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no inputs. The description does not need to explain parameters, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate. It adds no parameter-related ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Docker images (repo, tag, id, size)' clearly identifies the resource (Docker images) and the data fields returned, and the tool name implies the list action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_containers and list_volumes, though it lacks an explicit verb in the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and similar listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'history' and the command, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, describe the output format, or mention dependencies such as SMART-capable devices. This under-specification is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, lean sentence that includes the underlying command for extra clarity. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose and target device, but lacks usage guidance and explicit behavioral details. Given no annotations and no output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'device' is not described in the schema, but the phrase 'for one device' indicates that it identifies the target storage device. However, no format or valid values are given, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'SMART self-test history for one device' and cites `smartctl -l selftest`, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like smart_status, smart_health, and run_smart_test by focusing specifically on self-test history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other SMART-related siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or a recommended context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by specifying the underlying command (`free -b`) and units (bytes), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior or any side-effect guarantees, leaving a minor transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key information (RAM and swap usage in bytes) and directly references the command. Every word earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description states the primary function but fails to describe the return structure (e.g., whether it returns totals/free/used fields or a breakdown of RAM versus swap). This ambiguity could hinder an agent trying to parse the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (empty properties), so the description correctly avoids adding parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (RAM and swap usage) and the unit (bytes), referencing the exact command `free -b` for precision. It distinguishes from siblings like disk_usage or network_info, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'show'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_system_info or top_processes. There are no exclusions, preferred contexts, or examples, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose behavior for edge cases (e.g., error if already running, idempotency, or required permissions).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral context (error handling, idempotency) and does not differentiate from restart_container beyond 'stopped'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 explain the 'name' parameter beyond the tool's context. It minimally implies the name identifies the container but adds no explicit parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('container'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like stop_container and restart_container. It states exactly what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for starting stopped containers but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use (e.g., if already running). It provides no exclusions or comparison with restart_container.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must describe behavior. It discloses that only the last `tail` lines are returned, not the full log, but omits details such as whether both stdout/stderr are included, whether the container must be running, and error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple log-fetching tool, the description is adequate but sparse. It does not mention output format or preconditions, and it does not provide guidance relative to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return-value detail, but overall context is thin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It clarifies that `tail` is a line count ('Last `tail` lines'), but it only implicitly defines `name` via 'container's logs'. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action and resource: returning the last `tail` lines of a container's logs. It distinguishes from sibling service_logs by specifying 'container', though it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: fetch recent log lines for a container. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like service_logs or docker_exec, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only information operation by listing what is reported, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made or that it may require Docker daemon access. The reclaimable-space detail adds useful behavioral context beyond a bare name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys both the general purpose and the specific categories covered. It is concise with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential information: what is measured and the categories included. It could mention the output format or potential need for Docker daemon access, but the core usage context is adequately covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with a 100% coverage baseline. The description correctly indicates the scope of the report, so there is nothing missing regarding parameter behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports disk usage and reclaimable space, categorized by images, containers, volumes, and build cache. It references the underlying `docker system df` command, making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not use an explicit verb, but the resource and scope are clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `disk_usage`, `storage_summary`, or `list_disks`. The Docker-specific scope is implied but not contrasted with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the include_all behavior and output fields, but fails to mention the schema default of include_all=true, which is inconsistent with the 'docker ps' baseline of showing only running containers. No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility; it partially fulfills this but leaves default behavior ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, dense sentence that conveys the core purpose and the parameter effect. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential output fields and include_all behavior. However, the default-value ambiguity slightly undermines completeness, and no mention of error conditions or permissions is present. Given the simplicity, it's adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly explains include_all adds stopped, providing meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't clarify the default value, but the schema does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as listing Docker containers with names/status/image, using the familiar 'docker ps' command as a reference. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list', the meaning is unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like list_images or container_stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as container_stats or container_inspect. The only hint is include_all's effect, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that it uses `ps` and is fast, but fails to disclose output format (e.g., columns such as PID, command, CPU%, MEM%), whether the limit parameter caps the result count, or any side effects. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It packs the essential information (purpose, sorting options, and performance note) into a compact form. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has no output schema, so the description is the primary source of context. It covers the core behavior and sortable metrics, but lacks details about the returned data structure, units, and the effect of `limit`. For a read-only tool, this is an adequate yet incomplete description, as the agent cannot fully anticipate the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for `sort_by` by explicitly stating it is 'cpu' or 'mem'. However, `limit` is only implied via 'top processes' and its default of 15 is not mentioned. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves the other to inference, which is partially acceptable for an obvious parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Top processes by cpu or mem' with the underlying `ps` command. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `memory_info` or `disk_usage`, as it specifically targets process-level resource usage. The verb 'top' implies listing/sorting, and the resource is 'processes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: for a quick view of top CPU or memory processes, highlighted by 'fast'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though no direct process-listing alternative exists among siblings. The sort_by clarification gives some usage context but not full guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the useful behavioral context of '(seconds of downtime)', which tells the agent about the operational impact. It does not contradict the annotations and provides additional transparency beyond the structured hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action, scope, and a key side effect. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with a destructive annotation, the description provides core context (action, scope, downtime), but it lacks any description of the required 'name' parameter and does not mention alternative related tools. This leaves some gaps in the overall context needed for fully informed invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The description fails to clarify what 'name' refers to (container name), its format, or how it relates to the action, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond the schema's bare property name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restart') and the specific resource ('a single container'), and adds the scope qualifier 'single' to distinguish from restarting a stack. This is a specific verb+resource combination that effectively differentiates from the sibling tool 'restart_stack'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool—restarting a single container—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like 'start_container', 'stop_container', or 'restart_stack'. It does not state exclusions or mention sibling tools, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a useful nuance by noting that both mounted and unmounted filesystems are included, which is not obvious from the name. However, it does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it may be slow, or any authorization requirements, though the read-only nature is likely implied by the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight clause that conveys the essential scope in fewer than ten words. Every word adds information: 'All' indicates completeness, 'OMV knows about' limits to system-known filesystems, and 'mounted or not' clarifies inclusion criteria.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It tells the agent what the tool returns (all filesystems) but not the structure of the result items or any potential caveats. Given the lack of output schema, a bit more detail on return values would improve completeness, though the tool's simplicity partially compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty with full coverage. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (filesystems) and scope (all known to OMV, both mounted and unmounted). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_disks and list_block_devices by focusing on filesystems rather than physical devices. The only weakness is that the description lacks an explicit verb, but the name conveys the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_disks or list_block_devices. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or references to siblings, so users/agents must infer appropriateness from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the output fields (id, name, status), which gives some expectation of a read-only listing, but it does not mention potential behaviors such as sorting, filtering, or error conditions. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short parenthetical with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the resource and the output fields, making it highly scannable and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: the resource and the returned fields. It could be slightly more explicit about returning a list of stacks, but the plural 'stacks' and the field list make the behavior sufficiently clear for a simple read-only call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The listed fields (id, name, status) are clearly output fields, not parameter descriptions, and with no parameters the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (Portainer stacks) and the expected output fields (id, name, status), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_containers or list_images. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence with a verb; the action is implicit in the tool name 'list_stacks'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stack_compose or start_stack. Usage is implied by the resource name and the list verb, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It names the output components but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention potential errors (e.g., container not found), or describe the output format. The term 'docker inspect' implies read-only behavior, but this is implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope and output categories, earning every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the return categories (config, mounts, network, state), which helps an agent anticipate the result. It lacks explicit mention of JSON output or error scenarios, but these are reasonably implied for a Docker inspect operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds minimal context via 'for one container', indicating the name identifies a container, but it doesn't clarify if a name or ID is expected, nor provide examples. This partially compensates for the schema gap but could be more helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'Full docker inspect' for a single container and lists the returned categories (config, mounts, network, state). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_stats or container_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the comprehensive inspection tool ('Full docker inspect') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclusions. No direct comparison to sibling tools is provided, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context beyond that: it explicitly states 'UNRESTRICTED -- no allow/deny-list,' clearly warning about the lack of safety filters. It also discloses the execution context ('as its user') and return format ('{stdout, stderr, exit_code}'), which are useful behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence followed by a critical warning and return info. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, uses caps for emphasis, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, safety warning, and return format. However, it lacks explicit parameter semantics and usage guidance, and the low schema coverage leaves the agent to infer important details like container name vs ID and timeout units.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly indicates that 'cmd' is a shell command and 'name' is the container, but it does not explicitly define the parameters or explain 'timeout' (e.g., units). No additional format or validation details are provided, leaving gaps for an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Run a shell command inside a container as its user.' It uses a specific verb ('Run'), identifies the resource ('container'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'run_command' by specifying the execution context. The 'UNRESTRICTED' warning adds important scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys that the tool is unrestricted ('no allow/deny-list') and executes as the container user, implying it is the go-to for arbitrary container commands. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'run_command' for host commands) or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the behavioral effect of bringing containers up, but does not mention what happens if the stack is already running, whether the operation is synchronous, or permission requirements. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and effect. It is concise with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. However, given the lack of annotations and minimal description, important contextual details such as error conditions, idempotency, and prerequisites are missing. It is adequate for a basic operation but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It does not mention stack_id at all. While the parameter name and type are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Start' with a specific resource 'a stopped stack' and adds the effect 'brings its containers up', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like restart_stack and stop_stack. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'a stopped stack' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It implies the stack must be stopped, distinguishing from restarting or stopping operations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the output scope ('name/versions only', {count, packages}) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires elevated privileges, or triggers a package index refresh. The read-only nature is strongly implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, the data scope, and the output structure. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. This is an model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete. It specifies what is returned (name/versions only), the top-level keys ({count, packages}), and the domain (APT). There are no hidden inputs to explain and no sibling ambiguity left unresolved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description correctly avoids inventing non-existent parameters and clearly states what the output contains. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds meaningful output context without parameter noise.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as reporting APT packages with pending upgrades, restricted to name/versions only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_updates, which performs the actual upgrades. The scope and output are immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_updates or system status tools. While the name implies checking for updates, there is no stated context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is only implied, not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation and mentions the JSON output form via `lsblk -J`, but it does not disclose potential permission requirements, how devices are ordered, or whether the output is a single array or grouped structure. It is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key information about the resource and fields, then adds the command reference. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless listing tool, the description covers the essential return fields and the output format. It is sufficiently complete given the lack of annotations and output schema, though it could mention any caveats like requiring root privileges or the JSON structure, but these are not critical for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 adds value by specifying what data the tool returns, which is the only meaningful semantic content. There are no parameters to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists block devices and enumerates the exact attributes returned (size, model, serial, fs, mountpoint, uuid). It also names the underlying command (lsblk -J), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like list_disks or list_filesystems.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when block device details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_disks, list_filesystems, or storage_summary. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the filtering of virtual docker/veth interfaces and references the `ip -j addr` command, which implies JSON output. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, any required privileges, or detailed output structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It quickly states the core function, includes the relevant command for reference, and adds the filtering detail without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, specifies the command, and highlights a critical filtering behavior. The lack of explicit return format is a minor gap, but the command reference likely provides enough context for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 correctly implies no configurable inputs, and the empty schema confirms this. No further parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool's function: listing network interfaces with addresses, using `ip -j addr`. It also distinguishes itself from sibling Docker network tools by explicitly stating that virtual docker/veth interfaces are filtered out, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining physical/host network interface details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_networks` (Docker networks) or other info tools. No direct exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It accurately communicates a read-only operation (journalctl -u), but doesn't disclose potential edge cases like permissions required or behavior for nonexistent units.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, immediately states the primary resource (journal entries for a systemd unit), and includes the equivalent command. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only log retrieval with an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately. It doesn't mention the return format, but the output schema handles that, and the `journalctl -u` reference gives familiarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining that `unit` is the systemd unit and `lines` controls the number of entries returned. However, it doesn't detail the expected format of `unit` (e.g., with or without `.service`).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool retrieves the last journal entries for a systemd unit, using the `journalctl -u` equivalent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `container_logs` (which target containers) and `service_status` (which reports status, not logs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving recent logs from systemd-managed services. It does not explicitly reference alternatives, but the systemd unit focus differentiates it from container-related log tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, which is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the underlying command (`smartctl -A`) and that it returns an attribute table plus temperature and power-on hours, which is good. However, it does not cover potential failure modes (e.g., device not supporting SMART), permission requirements, or the exact output format, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with the primary action front-loaded and the parameter clarification placed in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it states what data is returned (full table plus temperature and power-on hours) and how to specify the device. It could be more thorough about error handling or return structure, but given the minimal scope, it covers the key contextual needs without being overly verbose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero description for the 'device' parameter, so the description compensates by explicitly stating that `device` is 'sda' or '/dev/sda'. This adds concrete format examples, which is essential for correct invocation and goes beyond the lone schema property name. A minor gap is that it doesn't clarify whether partitions or other device identifiers are acceptable, but it's sufficient for typical usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a full SMART attribute table for a single device using `smartctl -A`, plus temperature and power-on hours. This is specific (verb 'Full SMART attribute table' + resource 'one device') and distinguishes it from siblings like smart_status (which likely covers only health status) and disk_temperatures (which likely covers only temperature data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when full SMART attribute details are needed) by specifying its output, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no 'use X instead' guidance, so it remains at the implied-usage level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The term 'self-assessment' implies a non-destructive read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or what permissions are required. It does disclose the output type (PASSED/FAILED), which is a useful behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences that front-load the purpose and then explain the parameter. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and a straightforward output, the description is reasonably complete. It states what it does, the parameter format, and the result (PASSED/FAILED), but does not specify whether the output is a simple string or includes additional fields, nor the exact criteria for PASSED/FAILED. Given the sibling context and simplicity, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With no schema descriptions, the description compensates by explaining the 'device' parameter format: '`device` is 'sda' or '/dev/sda'', clarifying that both forms are accepted. This adds meaning beyond the bare string schema. It could go further with examples for other device types (e.g., nvme0n1), but it covers the common case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('overall-health self-assessment') with a concrete output ('PASSED/FAILED') and a scoped target ('for one device'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like smart_status and smart_attributes by highlighting the 'overall' PASSED/FAILED result rather than detailed attributes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: use this for a quick SMART health check of a single disk. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like smart_status or when not to use it, nor any mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation by mentioning 'usage' and the `df -h` reference, but it doesn't detail output structure or any potential side effects. Still, the command is standard and safe, so the minimal detail is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. It gets straight to the point and is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple, parameterless tool, and the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. The `df -h` reference makes the behavior unambiguous, so the description is complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'Human-readable filesystem usage' and cites the specific `df -h` command, leaving no ambiguity about its function. This distinguishes it from siblings like `list_disks` or `list_block_devices`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the description: use it to examine filesystem usage in a human-readable format. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as `docker_system_df`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it reads from `smartctl -A`, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention permissions, failure modes, or the exact output format. For a simple read-only tool this is adequate, but it lacks detail on return structure or behavior when no disks are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that states the purpose and method without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the metric (°C), the scope (every physical disk), and the method (`smartctl -A`). It does not specify the return layout, but given the simplicity and sibling context (e.g., `list_disks`), an agent can infer a list of disk-to-temperature mappings. This is slightly below perfect only because it omits mention of what happens if SMART data is unavailable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 correctly notes no parameters via the empty schema, and there is nothing more to explain. The method mention adds context but no parameter-specific information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('reports') and resource ('temperature of every physical disk'), with the method (`smartctl -A` per disk). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `cpu_temp` (CPU temperature) and `smart_attributes` (detailed SMART attributes), which could also include temperature but with a broader scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use when disk temperatures are needed, especially per-disk values. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but given the zero-parameter design and clear purpose, an agent can easily infer when to call this tool. No exclusions or edge cases are noted, but simplicity makes this acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'info' and the read-only nature of the listed fields strongly imply a non-destructive query, though it does not explicitly confirm read-only status or mention failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact line that front-loads the tool category ('OMV/host info') and then provides a colon-separated list of returned fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool without an output schema, the field list is sufficient to convey the essential return values. It does not specify units or formats, but the description is complete enough for a basic system-info retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by listing the output fields, but this is not parameter-related. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as returning OMV/host information and enumerates specific fields (hostname, OMV version, kernel, CPU, memory, uptime, load). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_info or network_info, which target narrower subdomains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The field list implies this is the general system overview tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools or any exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation destructiveHint=true already flags mutating behavior, and the description adds 'UNRESTRICTED -- can call mutating methods too,' reinforcing and expanding on that. It also explains how to discover methods, which is useful context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose and example. It contains no filler and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a generic passthrough tool, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the fact that it is unrestricted, and how to find method names. It lacks return value or error behavior details, but those are less critical for an arbitrary RPC passthrough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The example `omv-rpc -u admin <service> <method> <params>` clarifies the ordering and purpose of the three parameters, but it does not provide individual descriptions or constraints for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'Generic OMV RPC passthrough' with an example command, making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from the specific sibling tools by being an unrestricted arbitrary RPC caller.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It notes 'UNRESTRICTED -- can call mutating methods too,' implying it is a catch-all for RPC methods not covered by specific tools. It also gives a method discovery path, but does not explicitly state when to prefer other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While the annotation already marks this as destructive, the description adds the critical behavioral detail that the reboot only occurs when confirm=True. This informs the agent of a safety mechanism and enables appropriate action. It does not contradict the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, each with essential information. The first states the action, the second states the prerequisite. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description provides sufficient context: what it does and what condition triggers the action. It does not describe return values or post-reboot effects, but those are largely implicit for a reboot operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only lists 'confirm' with a default of false and no description, but the description clarifies that confirm must be true for the reboot to happen, giving semantic meaning beyond the schema. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb ('Reboot') and resource ('the NAS'), making it immediately obvious what action it performs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'shutdown' and 'restart_stack' by naming the specific target (NAS).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instructions imply this tool is for rebooting the NAS and note that confirmation is required, but they do not explicitly address when to use it versus alternatives like 'shutdown' or 'restart_stack'. No exclusions or broader usage context are provided, so it's clear but lacks alternative comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds the key behavioral consequence of downtime and the requirement that confirm=True is necessary to execute. This gives the agent helpful context about impact and safety without contradicting the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes essential caveats without any filler. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive action with destructiveHint annotated and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, consequence, and required confirmation. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could have briefly mentioned the container state after stop.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'confirm' by clarifying that it must be true, which is not evident from the boolean type alone. The 'name' parameter is self-explanatory as the container identifier, so the brief description is sufficient for this simple tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop a running container') with a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical '(downtime until restarted)' reinforces the scope. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'start_container' and 'restart_container'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you intentionally want a container stopped, noting the downtime consequence, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., 'use restart_container for a quick restart'). The confirmation requirement is a useful operational guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety and behavior. It makes clear this is a read-only snapshot operation via `--no-stream`, which is useful context. However, it does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., Docker daemon access) or that 'Live' actually means a one-time snapshot, though the command hint partially clarifies this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single concise sentence that packs the key output metrics and the equivalent command. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the output data (CPU%, memory, net/block I/O) and the mode (no-stream snapshot). It is complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and that it is a safe, read-only operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any input semantics. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately adds no irrelevant parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides live per-container CPU%, memory, and net/block I/O stats, which is a specific and distinct function from container listing, inspection, or logs. The reference to `docker stats --no-stream` further anchors the resource and behavior, making it easy to identify the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the exact docker command, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over siblings like top_processes, docker_system_df, or container_inspect. There is no mention of alternatives or the difference between container-level and host-level statistics, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial context: the command runs as root, is UNRESTRICTED with no allow/deny-list, and returns a structured {stdout, stderr, exit_code}. This goes beyond the annotation and sets appropriate expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a critical safety warning and alternative guidance, and ends with the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, safety, alternative tools, and return type. It omits details about the timeout parameter and lacks an example, but for a simple command-execution tool, this is largely sufficient. The return format is clear, and the destructive nature is well-flagged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero descriptions for the parameters, and the description does not explain 'cmd' or 'timeout'. While 'cmd' is implied by 'shell command', 'timeout' and its default of 60 are never mentioned, leaving ambiguity about units and behavior. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs an arbitrary shell command on the NAS as root, with the specific verb 'Run' and a well-defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is unrestricted and unguarded, while others are more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises preferring specific tools (omv_rpc, docker, stacks) over hand-editing config, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also warns about the lack of restrictions, implying cautious use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: noninteractive execution, the need for confirm=True, and the return format `{exit_code, output}`. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the safety gate and result shape, which is helpful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the action. Every phrase adds value: the exact command, noninteractive mode, the confirm requirement, the prerequisite step, and the return type. There is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a system-modifying tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, prerequisite workflow, safety requirement, and return format. It does not explain side effects beyond 'APT upgrades', but the destructiveHint annotation covers the risk profile, and the tool's scope (APT) is well understood. A perfect score would require more detail about failure modes or specific system impact, but this is sufficient for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one boolean parameter 'confirm' with default false and no description beyond its title. The tool description compensates by explicitly stating 'Requires confirm=True', adding critical meaning that the parameter must be true for the upgrade to proceed. This is important semantic information not present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool installs pending APT upgrades via `apt-get -y upgrade` with noninteractive mode. It names a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('pending APT upgrades'), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like `available_updates` (which lists updates) and `run_command` (generic).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Requires confirm=True' and 'Run `available_updates` first to see what changes.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (after checking available updates) and the required prerequisite (confirm=True). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds useful behavioral context: the stop-start cycle and the downtime involved. It also emphasizes the confirm requirement, which is not fully captured by the annotation alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that convey the core functionality, downtime warning, and confirmation requirement. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, destructive annotation), the description provides essential context: the operation, downtime, and confirm requirement. It does not mention error cases or what happens if confirm is false, but for this level of complexity it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the critical parameter 'confirm' (must be true). The stack_id is left implicit but is straightforward given the tool name and schema type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Stop then start a stack', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_stack and stop_stack by directly describing the composite restart operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to restart a stack) and explicitly states a key requirement: 'Requires confirm=True'. It also warns about downtime, setting clear expectations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only a title in annotations and no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the test runs in the background, adds drive load, and requires confirmation, which are important behavioral traits. No contradictions with annotations are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it front-loads the core action, then provides parameter details, behavioral notes, and the confirmation requirement in a few short sentences. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that initiates a background self-test, the description is quite complete: it covers the action, parameter specifics, side effects, and the follow-up tool (smart_selftest_log). It does not explicitly state the immediate return value, but given the background nature and no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents valid values for `kind` ('short', 'long', 'conveyance') and clarifies the confirm requirement. The `device` parameter is left to the schema (as a required string), which is reasonably inferable from the tool's purpose. This partial compensation justifies a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Start a SMART self-test on a device.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like smart_status, smart_health, and smart_selftest_log by explicitly mentioning that results should be polled with smart_selftest_log. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it explains that the test runs in the background and adds drive load, and explicitly names smart_selftest_log as the tool for polling results later. It also notes that confirm=True is required. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool in favor of status tools like smart_status or smart_health, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It is transparent about the underlying command (`sensors -j`) and the output format (structured JSON), which sufficiently communicates the read-only, non-destructive nature of the tool. It does not discuss permissions or edge cases, but for a simple sensor readout this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no waste. It conveys the tool's purpose, output format, and underlying mechanism efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains what is returned (all lm-sensors readings) and in what format (JSON). It could elaborate on the JSON structure (e.g., keyed by chip/adapter), but this is not critical for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, which meets the baseline of 4. The description adds context by specifying the exact command used, ensuring there is no ambiguity about how the readout is produced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all lm-sensors readings as structured JSON, referencing the underlying `sensors -j` command. This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like cpu_temp and disk_temperatures, which target individual sensor categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'All lm-sensors readings' signals that this is the comprehensive sensor-data tool, implicitly contrasting with narrower siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds a behavioral guard: 'Requires confirm=True.' This is beyond the annotation and informs the agent that confirmation is mandatory, providing useful extra transparency about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name, and every word adds value. This is an example of efficient, well-structured writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description covers the essential action and the critical confirmation requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description directly addresses the single parameter: 'Requires confirm=True.' This clarifies the meaning and importance of the 'confirm' boolean, which is otherwise only shown in the schema with a default. This compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: 'Power off the NAS.' This uses a specific verb ('Power off') and a clear resource ('the NAS'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'reboot' and 'restart_stack' by indicating a full shutdown rather than a restart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage condition: 'Requires confirm=True.' This tells the agent that the tool will not execute without explicit confirmation, which is a key usage guideline. It does not explicitly discuss when to use vs. alternatives, but for a shutdown tool with few similar siblings, this is adequate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains exactly what happens (takes all containers down) and adds a critical safety requirement (confirm=True). This informs the agent about the tool's behavior and preconditions beyond what annotations already convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every word serves a purpose. The parenthetical clarifies the effect without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive operation with two parameters, the description adequately covers the purpose, the effect, and the mandatory confirmation flag. The absence of an output schema is not an issue since the tool likely returns a simple confirmation or status. The description is complete for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the confirm parameter by explicitly requiring it to be true, but it does not explain stack_id, which is left to inference from its name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but could provide more detail on the stack_id parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Stop' with the resource 'running stack' and clarifies the effect ('takes all its containers down'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_stack and restart_stack.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 (to stop a running stack), and the instruction 'Requires confirm=True' gives an explicit prerequisite. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key trait: skipping tmpfs/overlay/virtual mounts, and implies a read-only operation via `df`. It could add details about permissions or error behavior, but the disclosed filtering behavior is significant and goes beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two dense sentences cover purpose, return content, and exclusions with no wasted words. The most important information ('per-mount usage') is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema system tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what data it returns, and which mounts it skips. No additional context is necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('per-mount usage for the OS + data disks') and enumerates exact fields (device, mount, fstype, total/used/avail bytes, percent). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it skips tmpfs/overlay/virtual mounts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 this tool (OS and data disks) and explicitly notes exclusions (virtual mounts), which implies when not to use it. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or give a direct 'use this instead of...' recommendation, so it doesn't fully reach a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds critical behavioral details: the command is equivalent to `docker system prune -f`, the volumes=True flag deletes anonymous volume data (explicit 'DELETES their data'), and confirm=True is mandatory. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences achieve high density: the first states the core function and scope, the second covers the critical options and their consequences. No filler or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with two flags and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is removed, what each flag does, and the required confirmation. No critical missing information for an agent to select and correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: confirm (required, acts as a safety gate) and volumes (drops anonymous volumes, with a data-loss warning). This completely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reclaim space') and the exact resources affected ('stopped containers, dangling images, unused networks and build cache'), which is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like docker_system_df (disk usage). The title 'Prune unused Docker data' reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on the required confirm flag and the optional volumes flag, including the data-loss warning. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or point to a safer alternative for checking disk usage, but the context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses specific behavioral impacts: containers are recreated with brief downtime, confirmation is required, and existing environment configuration is preserved automatically. These details help the agent anticipate side effects and guardrails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two brief sentences that front-load the core purpose and include essential warnings. Every clause adds value—no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, safety, confirmation, and behavior sufficiently for this simple tool. It does not mention return values or error cases, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema, but overall it is well-rounded for the tool's likely usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that 'compose' is the YAML content and that 'confirm' must be true. 'stack_id' is not explicitly described but is obvious from the tool name and context. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Redeploy a stack with the given compose YAML', which clearly specifies the action (redeploy), resource (stack), and key input (compose YAML). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like restart_stack, which restarts without changing the compose configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context that this is destructive, requires confirm=True, and preserves existing environment variables. It does not explicitly name alternatives for when a simple restart is sufficient, but the destructive warning and required confirmation outline appropriate usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openmediavault-mcp-ssh MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vnaveenb/openmediavault-mcp-ssh/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vnaveenb/openmediavault-mcp-ssh)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openmediavault-mcp-ssh MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vnaveenb/openmediavault-mcp-ssh/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vnaveenb/openmediavault-mcp-ssh)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vnaveenb/openmediavault-mcp-ssh'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server