Check real-time station health telemetry to diagnose silent audio or missing detections. Review stream state, throughput, packet loss, uptime, and CPU.
Get real-time health telemetry for the monitoring station: audio stream state and ingest throughput, packet loss, and host uptime/CPU. Use this to diagnose a silent station or missing detections before other tools.
| 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?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'real-time' nature of the data and the concrete telemetry fields, which gives the agent useful expectations beyond the annotations. No contradictions or hidden side effects are indicated.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads what the tool returns, and the second clarifies when to use it. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the returned telemetry content and explains a concrete use case. The absence of an explicit response format or caveats is a minor gap, but zero required parameters and strong annotations keep this sufficiently complete.
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 takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter-documentation burden. The description is not required to explain inputs and adds no irrelevant parameter detail; the baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('real-time health telemetry for the monitoring station') and enumerates the included metrics. None of the sibling tool names overlap with health-telemetry scope, so it is immediately distinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states the diagnostic scenario ('silent station or missing detections') and gives ordering guidance ('before other tools'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.