Enable a physical network port on a Hostkey server by specifying server ID and port. Use get_network_status to find the port, then confirm to activate it.
Включить сетевой порт сервера (net/port_on).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID сервера | |
| port | Yes | Физический порт свитча из get_network_status | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to run the operation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the action of enabling but does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or whether the port must be physically present. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.
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 sentence that is concise and directly states the action. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and the parenthetical 'net/port_on' provides a clear reference to the underlying API method.
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 enable action with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention that the operation requires confirm=true, but that is already in the schema. The lack of any behavioral warnings or return info is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools that cover related actions.
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 all parameters (id, port, confirm) are already documented with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters, but since the schema carries the burden, a 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 uses a specific verb ('Включить' - enable) and a clear resource (network port of server). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool port_off, which presumably disables, so an agent can tell them apart without ambiguity.
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 purpose implies when to use it (to enable a port) and the existence of port_off as the complementary action. However, there is no explicit statement about when not to use it or alternatives beyond the name. The description is adequate but not explicit about prerequisites like confirm=true, which is already in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.