nagios_schedule_check_toolSchedules a forced immediate re-check of a Nagios host or service to refresh status on demand. Omit the service name to re-check the host itself.
Schedule a forced immediate re-check of a host or service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host_name | Yes | The hostname to check. | |
| service_description | No | Service name. Omit for host check. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Forced immediate" hints at overriding the normal check schedule, but it says nothing about side effects (notification generation, check-result overwrite), required permissions, or whether the action is reversible.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is also the source of the missing context.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for an action tool with zero annotations and no usage or side-effect context, the description is too thin to let an agent act confidently.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters and their semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the host-or-service dichotomy, which the schema also conveys via "Omit for host check." Baseline 3 applies.
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 and action ("schedule a forced immediate re-check") plus the resource scope (host or service). It is distinguishable from status/acknowledge/comment siblings by its action, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with any sibling.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the status-checking siblings. The agent must infer that this is the tool for kicking off an on-demand check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.