Restarts a specified systemd service after explicit confirmation and owner sudo authorization, enabling controlled recovery of failed or updated services on a Linux server.
Restart a systemd service (requires confirm=true and the owner's sudo authorization).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the confirm=true gate and the owner's sudo authorization requirement, both of which affect whether a call will succeed.
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 zero filler. The verb and resource come first, with preconditions in parentheses where they belong.
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 auth/confirm requirements are covered. However, for a destructive operation on a live system it omits the consequence of restarting (service downtime, dropped connections) and the expected format of the service name.
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 carry parameter meaning. It explains that confirm must be true, which is useful, but says nothing about the required 'name' parameter (e.g., whether it needs a .service suffix or unit-name format), leaving the required argument underspecified.
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: 'Restart a systemd service'. This clearly separates it from siblings like service_status (read) and service_reload (reload config without full restart), though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.
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 via the stated precondition (confirm=true plus sudo authorization). There is no explicit guidance on when to choose restart over service_reload, or when a restart is inappropriate (e.g., production services with active connections).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.