Switches the active Chestny ZNAK cabinet so later API calls use its credentials. Pass the cabinet name from the list to activate it.
Switch the active cabinet. Subsequent API calls use its credentials.
Args: name: the cabinet to activate (see {svc}_list_cabinets).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations say openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true but do not explain the global side effect; the description supplies that key behavioral context — credential switching for subsequent calls. It doesn't state auth requirements or error behavior if the name is invalid, so not a 5.
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 short sentences: effect first, then the single parameter with a pointer to the discovery tool. Zero waste, fully front-loaded.
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?
With an output schema present and only one parameter, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, including the crucial cross-call side effect. Minor gaps (error cases, auth scope) remain but output schema covers the return side.
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 carry the burden, and it does define 'name' as the cabinet to activate and routes to the list tool for valid values. However, it gives no format/syntax detail beyond that, so only baseline-plus value.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Switch the active cabinet') and immediately names the resulting effect ('Subsequent API calls use its credentials'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like crpt_add_cabinet or crpt_remove_cabinet, which mutate the cabinet list rather than the active selection.
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?
Clearly indicates when to use it (to change which cabinet subsequent calls run against) and points to crpt_list_cabinets for discovering valid names. No explicit when-not or exclusions are given, keeping it below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.