Reload a systemd unit's configuration without restarting. Apply updated unit file settings immediately to the running service.
Ask a unit to reload its configuration without restarting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit_name | Yes | Systemd unit name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly highlights the key behavioral trait (no restart), which is the most important distinction. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., reload may not be supported by all units, configuration might fail silently, or reload requires the unit to be active). This leaves some gaps, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 that states the verb and resource immediately and adds the key qualifier ('without restarting') with zero filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the tool's purpose and differentiates it from restart, which is the main contextual need. It doesn't address edge cases like units that don't support reload, but this is a minor omission given the simplicity.
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 is fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the action (reload) and the resource (unit configuration), and explicitly differentiates from restart with 'without restarting,' making the intent unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like unit_restart_tool.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you want to apply configuration changes without a full restart. This provides clear context and effectively distinguishes from restart, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The implied contrast is sufficient for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.