Refresh OSGi bundles on specified AEM instances to apply updated configurations or resolve bundle state issues. Provide bundle ID or symbolic name and target instances.
Refresh OSGi bundles on AEM instances
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aliases | No | Array of instance aliases | |
| bundleId | No | Bundle ID to operate on | |
| instances | No | Array of AEM instances | |
| symbolicName | No | Bundle symbolic name to operate on |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does not explain whether refresh mutates bundle state, whether it is safe, whether credentials are required, or what the operational effect is compared to restart. The term 'Refresh' remains ambiguous in lifecycle terms.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse and lacking any supporting detail.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical details unresolved: which parameters are needed, what happens after refresh, what the return value is, and how this differs from restart. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly with confidence.
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?
The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about how to choose between bundleId and symbolicName, or between aliases and instances, but high schema coverage keeps this at 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?
Description states a specific action ('Refresh') and resource ('OSGi bundles on AEM instances'), making the broad purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling aem_bundle_restart, and 'refresh' vs 'restart' could overlap semantically.
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 given for when to use this tool versus any of the bundle sibling tools such as restart, stop, start, or uninstall. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations despite many closely related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.