list_servicesEnumerates system services across platforms using systemctl or Get-Service, enabling AI agents to inspect service state before package or service changes.
Cross-platform service enumeration (systemctl or Get-Service).
CONCEPT:SM-OS.deployment.package-service-mutation: Package & Service Mutation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the implementation detail (systemctl vs Get-Service) and no scope information such as whether all services or only a subset are returned, nor any permission/auth caveat; the 'Mutation' concept tag additionally muddies the read-only signal the annotations establish.
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 first sentence is front-loaded and earns its place. The trailing 'CONCEPT:SM-OS.deployment.package-service-mutation: Package & Service Mutation' line is internal taxonomy jargon that adds no actionable information and is mildly misleading for a read-only listing tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with no parameters the calling contract is trivial. What is missing is routing context: with 25 siblings including manage_service, sm_service_operations, and health_check, the description does not say which one to reach for when.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are needed.
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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource (enumeration of services) and notes the cross-platform implementations (systemctl or Get-Service), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as manage_service or sm_service_operations, so the boundary is only inferable from the names.
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 statement of when to use this versus manage_service, sm_service_operations, or health_check. Worse, the appended 'CONCEPT:...package-service-mutation' tag points an agent toward a mutation concept even though the actual operation is a read-only listing, which can push a reader toward the wrong sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.