Systems Manager

Sm System Operations

sm_system_operations

Manage packages, updates, reboots, and system health by running actions such as install, clean, optimize, and query OS or hardware statistics.

Instructions

System operations for managing packages, system health, and updates

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_system_operations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	Action to perform. Must be one of: 'install_applications', 'update', 'reboot', 'clean', 'optimize', 'install_python_modules', 'get_os_statistics', 'get_hardware_statistics', 'search_package', 'get_package_info', 'list_installed_packages', 'list_upgradable_packages', 'system_health_check', 'get_uptime', 'list_env_vars', 'get_env_var', 'clean_temp_files', 'clean_package_cache', 'list_windows_features', 'enable_windows_features', 'disable_windows_features', 'add_repository', 'install_local_package'
`confirm`	No	Explicit confirmation for a mutating action. Pass true when the client cannot answer an approval prompt.
`env_var`	No	Environment variable name
`package`	No	Single package name
`packages`	No	List of applications/packages
`file_path`	No	Path to local package file
`repository`	No	Repository URL or name
`allow_on_k8s`	No	Override: allow 'update' or 'reboot' to proceed even if this host is detected as a live Kubernetes (RKE2) node. Prefer the universal-skills `k8s-node-rolling-update` workflow instead.
`feature_name`	No	Windows feature name

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

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and largely drops it. It never mentions that the action set includes destructive operations (reboot, clean, install, disable_windows_features), never mentions the confirm-approval requirement, and never mentions the Kubernetes-node safety guard. Only the bare phrase 'updates' implies mutation, with no consequences spelled out.

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?

A single twelve-word sentence contains no filler, but for a tool with nine parameters and twenty-three actions this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given a 23-action dispatcher with no annotations, no output schema, and mutating operations like reboot and install, the description should explain the read/write split, the confirm flow, and the k8s guard. None of that appears, leaving an agent dependent entirely on the schema to avoid a destructive mistake.

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% and the action parameter enumerates all 23 allowed values with per-parameter descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it—no explanation of which parameters pair with which actions (e.g. file_path only for install_local_package, feature_name only for Windows feature actions).

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names three broad domains (packages, system health, updates), which gestures at the tool's scope, but the verb 'system operations' is a generic umbrella. It does not hint that the tool is a 23-action dispatcher, and it gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings such as sm_service_operations, sm_process_operations, or sm_disk_operations.

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 statement of prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The only routing hint in the whole definition ('prefer the universal-skills k8s-node-rolling-update workflow') lives in the allow_on_k8s parameter schema, not in the description, so an agent comparing sibling tools gets nothing from the prose.

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