Request manual server power-on via Remote Hands; it creates a ticket for the data center shift and sends status updates and correspondence to your email.
Заявка Remote Hands: включить сервер вручную (jira/request_pon). Создаёт тикет Remote Hands для дежурной смены дата-центра; статус и переписка — в тикете (ссылка придёт на email).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID сервера | |
| 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 indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds meaningful context: it creates a Remote Hands ticket, involves the data-center duty shift, and tracks status/correspondence in the ticket with a link sent by email. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the side effect and follow-up channel.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence names the operation and the second explains the resulting ticket and follow-up, so 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 two-parameter action with full schema coverage and meaningful annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what will happen, where status will be visible, and how the user will be notified. It could mention the immediate API response shape, but that is a minor gap for this tool.
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 input schema already documents both parameters fully: id is the server ID and confirm must be true. The description adds only that the target is a server, which mostly restates the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score 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 states a specific action ('включить сервер вручную' / manually power on a server) performed via a Remote Hands ticket, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like request_rh_power_off, request_rh_reboot, and power_on. It also names the internal implementation (jira/request_pon), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 description makes the intended context clear: this is a Remote Hands request for a duty shift to manually power on a server. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over power_on or the other request_rh_* siblings, and it offers no exclusions or alternative-routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.