Switch the active cabinet so subsequent API calls use its credentials. Activate the needed cabinet by name from your available list before making requests.
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.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already marking this as non-read-only and idempotent, the description adds the key behavioral fact that switching the cabinet changes context so subsequent API calls use its credentials. This is precisely the stateful side effect an agent needs to know.
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, no redundancy. The behavior is front-loaded and the parameter guidance is placed exactly where needed.
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 one-parameter state-switch tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its lasting effect on subsequent calls, and where to discover valid arguments. It could mention prerequisites like adding the cabinet first, but this is not essential for invoking the 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?
Schema coverage for the single parameter is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning. It does explain that 'name' is the cabinet to activate and points to {svc}_list_cabinets for valid values, though it does not specify whether the value is an ID or display name.
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 object ('Switch the active cabinet') and immediately clarifies the operational effect: subsequent API calls use that cabinet's credentials. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like add, remove, or list 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?
The description implies its use case (changing the active credential context) and tells the agent to see {svc}_list_cabinets for the name argument. It does not explicitly contrast with add_cabinet or remove_cabinet, so the guidance is partial but adequate for a simple state-switch tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.