List, inspect, wait on, or cancel guest lifecycle tasks across a FreeBSD cluster. Track recent and active tasks or cancel a running migration by task ID.
List, show, or wait on guest lifecycle tasks; cancel migrations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | Target cluster node hostname or UUID. Omit for cluster-wide. | |
| limit | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| context | No | Named login context from ~/.config/sylve/config.yaml. | |
| task_id | No | ||
| timeout | No |
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 readOnlyHint=false; the description's 'cancel migrations' is consistent with that (no contradiction). However, it omits key behavior an agent needs: that 'wait' presumably blocks up to the timeout, and that cancelling a migration is irreversible. Those gaps keep it at a mid score rather than higher.
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 filler, and the primary capability is stated first. It is terse but not padded; the brevity is more under-specification (scored elsewhere) than waste.
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?
Five distinct actions, six parameters, a destructive cancel path, and no output schema — the definition gives one line for all of that. An agent cannot determine which parameters apply to which action or what wait/cancel actually return or do from this description.
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 is only 33% — limit, action, task_id and timeout have no schema descriptions. The description loosely maps to action values ('list, show, wait, cancel migrations') but never explains which actions require task_id, what limit does, or how timeout interacts with 'wait', so it only partially compensates.
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?
Specific verbs (list, show, wait, cancel) tied to a clearly named resource (guest lifecycle tasks), which is distinct from the VM/jail CRUD siblings. It does not name a sibling or clarify overlap with tools like sylve_vm_migrate, but the resource boundary is clear enough to select it.
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 lists the action modes in prose but never says when to pick 'recent' vs 'active' vs 'show', nor when to prefer this over sylve_vm_logs or sylve_vm_migrate. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer selection from the enum alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.