Switch the active Diadoc cabinet so subsequent API calls use its credentials. Specify the cabinet by name to process documents under the correct account.
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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful stateful context beyond those hints: the switched cabinet's credentials become active for all subsequent API calls, which is a global side effect the annotations do not convey.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and effect in the first sentence, then the parameter note. Two compact sentences with no filler, though the '{svc}' placeholder is slightly ambiguous in a standalone reading.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the essential effect and the parameter source, leaving only sibling differentiation unaddressed.
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 carries the burden for the single parameter. It explains that 'name' is 'the cabinet to activate' and points to {svc}_list_cabinets as the source of valid values, which meaningfully compensates for the schema gap.
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+resource ('Switch the active cabinet') and its immediate effect ('Subsequent API calls use its credentials'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like add_cabinet or remove_cabinet, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: the description tells the agent to consult {svc}_list_cabinets for a valid name, which is a prerequisite hint, but it never states when to prefer this over add_cabinet, remove_cabinet, or set_key, nor any conditions/exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.