Activate a specific Saby cabinet so that all subsequent API calls use its credentials, enabling operations within the chosen context.
Switch the active cabinet. Subsequent API calls use its credentials.
Args: name: the cabinet to activate (see sbis_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?
The description discloses the state-changing effect: switching the active cabinet and affecting subsequent API calls. This complements the annotations, especially idempotentHint=true, by clarifying the operational consequence. It does not cover error or persistence details, but that is minor given the simple operation.
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?
The description is very concise and front-loaded. The core action is in the first sentence, the consequence in the second, and the parameter explanation is minimal and relevant. No wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present. The description explains the essential behavior and parameter source. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that 'name' is the cabinet to activate and pointing to sbis_list_cabinets as the source of valid values. This is sufficient for a single string parameter.
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 verb and resource: 'Switch the active cabinet' and explains the consequence. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sbis_list_cabinets, sbis_add_cabinet, and sbis_remove_cabinet.
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?
It gives clear context for when to use the tool: before making API calls with a different cabinet's credentials. It references sbis_list_cabinets for finding valid names, but does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare against alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.