Start OSGi bundles on AEM instances by specifying bundle ID or symbolic name. Use instance aliases or direct connection details to activate the bundle on selected targets.
Start 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?
With no annotations available, the description is the only source of behavioral information, but it only states the action 'Start' without disclosing side effects, idempotency, failure behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if the bundle is already running. It is not misleading, but it is very minimal.
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 filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it could benefit from one more sentence giving usage or behavioral context without becoming bloated.
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 four parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to explain how instances are specified (aliases vs full instance objects), how the bundle is identified, what state the operation expects, or what the result or return value will be. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.
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%, so the parameter meanings are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional insight into how the parameters relate to the operation, such as the distinction between aliases and instances or between bundleId and symbolicName, so it stays at the 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?
The description states a specific action ('Start') on a clear resource ('OSGi bundles') and the target environment ('AEM instances'). It is unambiguous about the primary operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like aem_bundle_stop or aem_bundle_restart.
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 versus alternatives such as stop, restart, refresh, or uninstall. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the bundle must already be installed or stopped, or how to choose between bundleId and symbolicName.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.