termix_metrics_start_stop_restart_enable_disable_systemdManage systemd services by starting, stopping, restarting, enabling, or disabling them to control service availability and startup behavior.
Start/stop/restart/enable/disable a systemd service
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| unit | No | ||
| action | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds no behavioral context such as side effects, permission requirements, or service state changes. It neither contradicts the annotations nor supplements them.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it largely restates the title and does not earn its place by adding useful detail. It is brief rather than effectively structured.
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?
With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral notes, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke the tool reliably. It omits action enum values, id/unit semantics, and expected effects.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the `id`, `unit`, or valid values for `action`. The listed verbs are a weak hint about `action`, but the role of the required integer `id` and the string `unit` remains ambiguous.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The only usage signal is the self-evident verb list, which does not help an agent decide between related systemd or metrics operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.