restart_serviceRestart a VPS by service order number; use the returned event ID with wait_for_event to confirm completion.
Restart a VPS. Returns a numeric event id; follow it with wait_for_event. Requires services:manage and a full-access API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderNo | Yes | Tenant-owned service order number: 1-64 ASCII letters, digits or hyphens, e.g. VP12345 or VP12345-1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: it discloses the async event-id return, the required services:manage scope and full-access API key, and the wait_for_event follow-up.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then the return value, then the permission requirement. No filler.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the side effect, async handoff and auth prerequisites, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Only the return payload's pagination/format nuance is unstated, which is minor.
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% and the orderNo parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter itself.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Restart a VPS'), which is clearly distinguishable by name from start_service/stop_service siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those alternatives in the text.
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?
Adds actionable context for what to do next ('follow it with wait_for_event') and states the required scopes. It implies but never spells out when a restart is preferable to start_service or stop_service.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.