kvm-pilot

appliance_reboot

Destructive

Recovers a wedged RV1126 encoder by rebooting the KVM appliance, dropping KVM control for about 60s while leaving target power untouched. Use deliberately; destructive and approval-gated.

Instructions

Reboot the KVM APPLIANCE (not the target) to clear a wedged encoder. DESTRUCTIVE.

Recovers the RV1126 encoder wedge (the only fix — the stuck threads are unkillable kernel threads). Drops all KVM control for ~60s; the target's power is untouched. Gated by the appliance effect gate + per-invocation approval, with typed same-path denials (#234). There is no out-of-band power to the appliance, so use this deliberately, never in an automated loop.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "appliance_reboot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Per-invocation approval when the client cannot prompt a human: set true to approve this exact call under the operator's standing policy. Leave false when the client supports elicitation (a human is asked). Never pre-set it speculatively; a denial returns outcome=not_confirmed.
`profile`	No	Profile name from ~/.config/kvm-pilot/config.toml selecting which KVM/BMC (and its managed host) this call targets. Omit to use the server's default (KVM_PILOT_PROFILE).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0Oct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm / description

Added value: +"Per-invocation approval when the client cannot prompt a human: set true to approve this exact call under the operator's standing policy. Leave false when the client supports elicitation (a human is asked). Never pre-set it speculatively; a denial returns outcome=not_confirmed."

addedInput schema / properties / profile / description

Added value: +"Profile name from ~/.config/kvm-pilot/config.toml selecting which KVM/BMC (and its managed host) this call targets. Omit to use the server's default (KVM_PILOT_PROFILE)."

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds rich context beyond them: ~60s loss of all KVM control, that target power is untouched, gating by the appliance effect gate plus per-invocation approval, typed same-path denials (#234), and the absence of out-of-band power (brick risk). This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before a destructive act.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the action, scope, and the DESTRUCTIVE warning in the first line, then supporting detail about the recovery scenario. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the failure scenario, recovery rationale, downtime, gating, denial behavior, and brick risk. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the confirm and profile parameters are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's approval-gating context is tangentially relevant but adds no syntax or value semantics for the parameters themselves.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Reboot) and resource (the KVM APPLIANCE), and explicitly disambiguates from the target with '(not the target)' and 'the target's power is untouched.' That contrast distinguishes it from sibling verbs like power, which act on the target.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit triggering condition ('to clear a wedged encoder', 'recovers the RV1126 encoder wedge — the only fix') and an explicit exclusion ('never in an automated loop', 'use this deliberately'). It states both when and when-not, leaving nothing to inference.

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