io.github.AIops-tools/ceph-aiops

trigger_scrub

Destructive

Schedule a shallow scrub on a Ceph placement group to clear PG_NOT_SCRUBBED warnings.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=medium] Schedule a shallow scrub on a PG (clears a PG_NOT_SCRUBBED warn).

Args: pgid: Placement group id, e.g. "2.1a" (from pg_summary / scrub_status). target: Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

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": {
      "pgid": "<pgid>"
    },
    "name": "trigger_scrub"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pgid`	Yes
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.11.5Sep 19, 2026
Removedv0.3.0Jul 17, 2026
First observedv0.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare write/non-idempotent/destructive, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: a risk=medium qualifier, the async nature implied by "Schedule", and the concrete effect of clearing a specific warning. It stops short of describing permissions, failure behavior, or what state is altered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the [WRITE][risk=medium] tags, then a one-line purpose, then Args. No filler sentences, and the most important qualifiers appear first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 and no annotations covering the outcome, the definition is adequate but leaves gaps: nothing about whether the scrub runs synchronously, how completion is observed, or what authorization is required. The args and safety profile are covered, the operational contract is not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the load and does so well: pgid gets a concrete example ("2.1a") and its source tools (pg_summary / scrub_status), and target is explained as a config name with the omit-for-default rule. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Schedule a shallow scrub on a PG") plus the observable outcome ("clears a PG_NOT_SCRUBBED warn"). The word "shallow" implicitly scopes it against the sibling trigger_deep_scrub, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical about clearing a PG_NOT_SCRUBBED warn implies when the tool is warranted, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing to trigger_deep_scrub or the mention of prerequisites. Usage must be inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.