restart_appRestart a Homey app by its ID to fix unresponsive devices. Use when devices from an app stop responding.
Restart a Homey app. Useful when devices from that app are unresponsive. Use list_apps to find the app ID (e.g. 'com.fibaro').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | App ID (e.g. com.fibaro, nl.philips.hue) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'restart' is consistent with these. The description adds a bit of context about unresponsive devices, but doesn't disclose further behavioral details like temporary disconnection of devices during restart. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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, front-loaded with the core action, then usage context and a helpful hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and how to get the required ID. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 provides full coverage of the single 'id' parameter with a clear description and examples. The description repeats the example ('com.fibaro') and adds a reference to list_apps, but this is more of a usage guideline than new parameter meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Restart a Homey app') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like enable_app and uninstall_app by focusing on restarting an app, not enabling/disabling or removing it.
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 a clear use case: 'Useful when devices from that app are unresponsive.' It also tells users how to find the app ID via list_apps. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., enable_app if the app is disabled), so it misses the full top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.