unit_restart_toolRestarts a systemd unit by name while refusing protected units, so you can recover or apply changes without risking critical services.
Restart a unit. Refused for units on the protected list.
| 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one trait – refusal for protected units – but does not mention that restart is a disruptive mutating operation, any permission requirements, or that it stops and starts the unit. This is marginal beyond the verb itself.
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 concise two-sentence description with no filler. Both sentences carry meaning: the core action and the refusal constraint. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb.
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 tool with an output schema, the description is minimally complete: it states the operation and one key constraint. However, it omits operational context such as the disruptive nature of restart, permission requirements, and the relationship to reload, which would help an agent use it safely without annotations.
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 covers 100% of the parameter ('Systemd unit name'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics such as exact-name syntax, glob support, or validation rules beyond what the schema provides.
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 resource ('Restart a unit'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like unit_start_tool, unit_stop_tool, and unit_reload_tool. The action is clear and not a tautology of the name.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to restart versus using a sibling such as unit_reload_tool or unit_start_tool, and no mention of prerequisites like daemon-reload after unit file changes. The only context is a refusal condition for protected units, which is a restriction, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.