fivem_server_controlStart, stop, or restart the FXServer via txAdmin, disconnecting all online players. Use for full server restarts or applying major updates.
start, stop ou restart do FXServer pelo txAdmin. Derruba todo mundo que estiver online — para recarregar um resource use fivem_command com "restart ".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Ação no processo do servidor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns that the action drops all online players, which is crucial for a destructive operation. It implies restart involves stopping and starting, which is understood. It doesn't mention permission requirements, but the explicit warning and the action types are sufficient for basic transparency.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical warning and alternative routing are provided efficiently. Every sentence 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?
For a simple tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the purpose, usage, and behavioral impact. The warning about disconnecting players is essential context, and the routing to fivem_command addresses the most common alternative. Nothing critical is missing.
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?
The schema already fully documents the 'action' parameter with an enum and a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by implying the effects of each action (e.g., restart drops players), which adds value. Since there is only one parameter and the schema is clear, the description's extra context justifies a 4.
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 tool controls the FXServer process (start, stop, restart) and explicitly distinguishes it from fivem_command for resource reloads. The verb and resource are specific, and the warning about disconnecting players adds clarity.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for process control) and when not to (for resource reloads, use fivem_command with 'restart <resource>'). This clearly routes the agent to the correct sibling tool, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.