Restores a disabled service to its active state. Use this when a service was turned off and needs to be enabled again.
Turns a service back ON in LMCP after the user turned it off.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.413Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action itself and adds no information about side effects, idempotency, whether an error occurs if already enabled, or what the return value means. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for an unannotated mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, the target, and the precondition efficiently.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what it does and when to use it. It does not explain return behavior or error cases, but these are less critical for such a simple toggle and no annotations exist to contradict.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description correctly implies the tool needs no additional input, matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.
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 ('Turns ... back ON') and resource ('a service in LMCP'), and adds the crucial precondition ('after the user turned it off'). This clearly distinguishes it from state-checking tools like lmcp_state and avoids tautology.
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 phrase 'after the user turned it off' provides clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion, but for a simple toggle with no sibling enable/disable tools, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.