Resume normal satellite tracking by unstowing the dish. Requires write access and explicit confirmation.
Unstow the dish (resume normal satellite tracking).
Requires STARLINK_WRITE_ENABLED=true AND confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true to unstow the dish |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool requires write-enablement and confirmation, which is useful, but it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the dish is already unstowed. The description adds some behavioral context but not full transparency.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical requirements are stated immediately after.
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?
The tool has a simple one-parameter schema and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a mutating action with no annotations, it would benefit from stating side effects or reversibility. It is adequate but not fully 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the confirm parameter. The description reinforces that confirm must be true, which adds a small amount of semantic clarity, but it does not go beyond the schema's own description.
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 ('Unstow') and resource ('the dish'), and clarifies the action as resuming normal satellite tracking. It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling starlink_stow, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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 clearly states the required precondition (STARLINK_WRITE_ENABLED=true) and the confirmation requirement (confirm=true). It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear for a write action among read-only siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.