deploy_restartRestart a running Lizard service to apply configuration or code changes without a full rebuild. Each call immediately triggers a new restart.
Use this when the user wants to restart a running Lizard service without rebuilding it. Returns immediately. Each call restarts it again, even if called again immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| service | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it says the call returns immediately and that repeated calls restart the service again, clarifying the non-idempotent runtime effect.
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 three tight sentences: usage condition first, then immediate-return behavior, then repeated-call semantics. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.
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?
Annotations cover the destructive and non-idempotent safety profile, and the description covers timing and repeat behavior. However, for a destructive mutation tool it omits parameter explanations, prerequisites, and what 'destructive' means in practice, such as downtime or dropped in-flight requests.
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% for two required parameters, project and service. The description provides no meaning for either parameter, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 running Lizard service. It also distinguishes the action from rebuild-based deploys by saying 'without rebuilding it', which helps separate it from deploy_redeploy.
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 a clear condition for use: when the user wants to restart a running service without rebuilding. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as deploy_redeploy for rebuilds or service_resume for stopped services, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.