navig_run_commandExecute any NAVIG CLI command and return the result, enabling all NAVIG operations from an MCP client.
Execute a NAVIG CLI command and return the result. Use for any navig operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | Command arguments | |
| command | Yes | NAVIG command to run (without 'navig' prefix) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds nothing on top: it never warns that an arbitrary CLI command may mutate or destroy state, gives no permission/auth requirements, and mentions no side effects. For a destructive command runner this is a thin disclosure.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler. It is tight and readable, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness.
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 catch-all, destructive command runner with no output schema, the description is too thin: no command syntax examples, no note about return shape, no relationship to the dozens of specialized navig_* siblings. Annotations carry the safety signal, but the routing and calling context an agent needs is largely absent.
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 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including that the command is given 'without navig prefix' and that args is an array of strings. The description adds no format hints, examples, or argument-quoting guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a NAVIG CLI command and return the result.' An agent understands this is a generic command-escape-hatch tool. However it does not distinguish itself from the many specialized navig_* siblings, and 'Use for any navig operation' actually blurs that boundary rather than clarifying 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?
The only guidance is 'Use for any navig operation,' which is blanket and overbroad rather than a when/when-not rule. It never acknowledges that dedicated siblings (navig_list_hosts, navig_host_info, navig_search_wiki, navig_bay_acquire, etc.) exist or when this generic runner should be preferred over them. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.