sm_service_operationsList, check status, start, stop, restart, enable, or disable system services on managed hosts.
Operations for managing system services
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to perform. Must be one of: 'list_services', 'get_service_status', 'start_service', 'stop_service', 'restart_service', 'enable_service', 'disable_service' | |
| service_name | No | Name of the service |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says only "managing system services" and does not disclose that actions like stop_service and restart_service are disruptive, what privileges are required, or what effects these operations have.
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 single sentence is short but vacuous rather than informative. It does not earn its place because it lacks the operational context needed for a multi-action service-management 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?
This is a complex tool with seven distinct actions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what each action does, what results are returned, or what risks accompany the destructive operations.
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%, and the action parameter already enumerates all seven allowed operations. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.
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?
"Operations for managing system services" essentially restates the tool name and title without naming a specific verb or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_services or manage_service.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_services or manage_service. It also does not indicate when specific actions, such as start, stop, or restart, should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.