Reserve lab hardware roles and trigger Jenkins jobs per plan; delays jobs until start time, and imports ACM spoke clusters when builds complete and wait_timeout is set.
Execute a plan from plan_scenario: reserve each role, trigger Jenkins jobs (delayed if start is in the future). ACM import runs only if wait_timeout_seconds is set and builds complete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | ||
| wait_timeout_seconds | No |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a generic mutation verb by disclosing that roles are reserved, Jenkins jobs are triggered, future starts are delayed, and ACM import only happens when wait_timeout_seconds is set and builds complete. It still omits failure/rollback behavior and return semantics, but it is far more transparent than a typical one-line mutation description.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the core behavior plus conditional rules are packed efficiently. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and restates the most important gating logic without redundancy.
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?
The description covers the main flow and the key conditional, which is enough to understand when to call the tool. However, this is a complex orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, and the description leaves out post_steps handling, failure behavior, whether the call blocks until completion, and what the response contains.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to plan as the artifact produced by plan_scenario and explains the role of wait_timeout_seconds in gating ACM import. However, the nested role object fields and post_steps are not explained beyond the schema's property names.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a plan from plan_scenario.' It further specifies the actual work—reserve each role, trigger Jenkins jobs, and conditionally run ACM import—which clearly separates it from siblings like plan_scenario, reserve_cluster, and trigger_jenkins_job.
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?
It clearly ties this tool to the output of plan_scenario, implying it should be used once a plan exists. It also adds context for conditional execution (delayed jobs, ACM import gated on wait_timeout_seconds), but it does not explicitly say when to choose reserve_cluster or trigger_jenkins_job for individual actions instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.