pod_restart_toolRestart a Podman pod and all of its containers in one step to recover services, apply configuration changes, or clear failed container states.
Restart a pod and all its containers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Pod name or ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It indicates a disruptive mutation ('restart') and notes that all containers are affected, which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to running state, or whether it's graceful vs forced—significant gaps 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, the resource, and the scope efficiently.
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, the description is minimal. It covers what the tool does and that all containers are affected, but omits behavioral details like graceful vs forced restart, required permissions, or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the lack of annotations and usage guidance leaves gaps.
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% and the single parameter ('name') is fully documented in the schema as 'Pod name or ID'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Restart') and resource ('pod'), and adds scope ('all its containers'), which distinguishes it from container_restart_tool. It clearly conveys the action without being a tautology.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus pod_stop_tool/pod_start_tool or container_restart_tool. The sibling list includes many alternatives (pod_stop_tool, pod_start_tool, container_restart_tool), but the description offers no routing advice or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.