Retrieve a snapshot of Blue Iris system health, including active profile, CPU, RAM, disk usage, uptime, and warnings. Check schedule hold/run and DIO outputs to diagnose issues.
Snapshot of Blue Iris system state: active profile, schedule hold/run, CPU%, RAM, disk usage, uptime, DIO outputs, warnings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | If true, return the raw Blue Iris JSON instead of the shaped view. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Snapshot' wording is consistent with a read-only operation. It adds context about the specific state fields covered, but beyond that it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response formatting, raw vs. shaped output, or potential delays. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, compact sentence with a colon-separated list of state elements. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and every listed item adds useful specificity without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the return content. It falls slightly short of full completeness because it does not mention the raw/toggle behavior or the overall output structure, but the schema covers the parameter and the field list gives adequate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the sole raw parameter fully described as toggling between raw and shaped view. The description does not discuss this parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantic weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a snapshot of Blue Iris system state and enumerates the specific components (active profile, CPU%, RAM, disk usage, etc.). This distinguishes it from configuration-focused siblings like bi_get_sysconfig, though it does not name an alternative tool directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of when this should be preferred over sibling getters such as bi_get_sysconfig or bi_get_session, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.