get_diagnostic_contextRetrieve full diagnostic context for Linux infrastructure, correlating host, Nginx, Docker, and PostgreSQL components with security insights.
Получить полный диагностический контекст со всеми компонентами и корреляциями
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a full diagnostic context with all components and correlations, which is useful, but it doesn't describe any side effects, performance implications, or what 'full' means in terms of scope or depth. For a read-only diagnostic tool, this 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence in Russian that front-loads the main purpose. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more informative about what 'full diagnostic context' includes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (full diagnostic context with components and correlations). However, it doesn't clarify how this differs from get_summary or system_health_check, which could lead to choosing the wrong tool among similar siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does clarify what the returned context contains (components and correlations), which adds meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Получить' = get) and resource ('полный диагностический контекст' = full diagnostic context), and mentions it includes all components and correlations. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_summary or system_health_check, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the tool to use when you need a complete diagnostic context with components and correlations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_summary or system_health_check. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.