Systems Manager

Sm Advanced Operations

sm_advanced_operations

Perform advanced system setup tasks such as adding SSH authorized keys, installing uv, creating Python virtual environments, installing packages, and managing Node.js versions.

Instructions

Operations for SSH and specialized managers

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "sm_advanced_operations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Path for venv
`action`	Yes	Action to perform. Must be one of: 'add_authorized_key', 'install_uv', 'create_venv', 'install_package', 'install_nvm', 'install_node', 'use_node'
`confirm`	No	Explicit confirmation for a mutating action. Pass true when the client cannot answer an approval prompt.
`package`	No	Package name to install
`version`	No	Version of python/node
`public_key`	No	Public key content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.9Nov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Explicit confirmation for a mutating action. Pass true when the client cannot answer an approval prompt.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv2.2.5Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden and delivers none of it. It does not disclose that most actions are mutating (writing authorized_keys, creating venvs, installing packages, installing node), does not mention the approval/confirm mechanism the schema alludes to, and says nothing about side effects, permissions, or failure modes.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is not verbose. However, brevity here is under-specification rather than economy: the one sentence carries no actionable content given seven distinct actions.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With six parameters, seven enumerated actions spanning SSH key management and toolchain installation, no annotations, and no output schema, this definition is drastically under-described. Nothing tells the agent what a successful call returns or which action requires which parameters, so correct invocation is only possible by reverse-engineering the schema.

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%, including the enumerated action list, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no guidance on which parameters pair with which action (e.g. path only for create_venv, public_key only for add_authorized_key), leaving that mapping for the agent to infer.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description reads as a near-restatement of the tool name ('Sm Advanced Operations' → 'Operations for SSH and specialized managers'), with no specific verb or resource. The only added hint is 'SSH', which vaguely gestures at add_authorized_key but says nothing about venv, uv, nvm, or node installation that the action enum actually contains. An agent cannot distinguish this from sm_system_operations, sm_service_operations, or the other sm_* siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives among the 25 siblings, several of which are also generic 'operations' tools. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the action enum inside the schema.

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