Change auto-stop or backup settings
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>",
"body": "<body>"
},
"name": "machine_update"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description says nothing about the destructiveness — e.g. whether omitting backup or auto_stop_minutes clears/resets the existing setting, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed. It is not contradicted by the annotations (it does describe a mutation), but it adds no behavioral context beyond them for a mutating tool.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. Its brevity is clean, though bordering on under-specification rather than economical conciseness.
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 mutating tool with a nested body object, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves too much undefined — set-vs-merge semantics for the optional body fields are the critical missing piece an agent needs to call this correctly.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does by naming the two body fields. It never explains id (the target machine), the 0–10080 minute bound on auto_stop_minutes, or that body is a nested object with both fields optional.
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?
"Change auto-stop or backup settings" gives a specific verb plus the two concrete settings affected, which distinguishes it from siblings like machine_stop or machine_create. It is clear what resource is being mutated, though it never says the target is a machine object keyed by id.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus machine_stop, machine_start, backup_restore, or snapshot tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this is the tool for adjusting auto-stop timers and backup toggles rather than performing the actions themselves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.