power_off_serverShut down a specified ArvanCloud server in a given region by providing its server ID, enabling direct power-off control via the MCP server.
[WRITE] OpenAPI IaaS 1.0: POST /regions/{region}/servers/{id}/power-off
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | Cloud Server region id from official docs, e.g. ir-thr-c2 | |
| server_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the [WRITE] prefix is redundant. The description adds no behavioral context such as side effects, downtime, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. It does not disclose traits beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded line with no wasted words. It immediately signals [WRITE] and the operation, then gives the endpoint. Every element earns its place.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits side effects, confirmation needs, permissions, and alternatives to powering off a server. Given the available annotations and sibling tools, more context is needed.
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 50%; region has a description and example, while server_id has none. The description only shows the path placeholders {region} and {id}, which adds little meaning beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented server_id parameter.
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 and resource: power off a Cloud Server. It also identifies the write operation via [WRITE] and the POST endpoint. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like power_on_server or reboot_server.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention power_on_server, reboot_server, or any conditions for choosing power-off. The agent is left 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.