Enable or disable one MCP server and redeploy the updated catalog to every harness, letting agents control which servers stay active across the fleet.
Enable or disable one MCP server, then redeploy the catalog to every harness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | global | |
| mcp_id | Yes | ||
| enabled | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious side effect — a catalog redeployment to every harness — which is genuinely valuable, but it omits permission requirements, reversibility/failure behavior, and whether the state change is persisted across restarts.
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?
A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Given three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the sentence is arguably undersized for the tool's complexity, keeping it just below a 5.
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 explained, and the redeploy side effect is disclosed. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description leaves scope semantics, default-enable behavior, and error/permission conditions unresolved.
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% across three parameters. The description implies mcp_id (one server) and the enabled flag, but says nothing about the `scope` parameter (default 'global') nor how the `enabled=true` default means a bare call enables rather than toggles. The unstated interaction between `scope` and 'every harness' is a real 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?
The description gives a specific verb pair (enable/disable) acting on a specific resource ('one MCP server'), which is clearly different from create_mcp, delete_mcp, or list_mcps. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives, but the verb+resource+scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can identify the tool's job.
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?
There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as create_mcp or delete_mcp. The only usage signal is the implied 'to change an MCP's state', which the name already conveys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.