Disable a VPN node by providing its UUID to stop its operations.
Disable a node
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": {
"uuid": "<uuid>"
},
"name": "nodes_disable"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Node UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('disable') but fails to explain what disabling entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, affects traffic, requires permissions, or has side effects). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise ('Disable a node'), consisting of three words that directly convey the core purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context to use the tool effectively despite the simple parameter schema.
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%, with the single parameter 'uuid' documented as 'Node UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.
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 description 'Disable a node' clearly states the action (disable) and target resource (node), which is adequate. However, it lacks specificity about what 'disable' means operationally (e.g., deactivating vs. deleting) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'nodes_delete' or 'users_disable', leaving room for ambiguity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'nodes_delete', 'nodes_enable', or 'users_disable'. The description does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or contextual triggers, offering minimal assistance for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.