restart_appRestart all processes of a Dokku application to apply changes or recover from issues. Requires explicit confirmation and read-write mode.
Restart all processes for a Dokku app.
Side effects: restarts the application (downtime possible). Requires DOKKU_MCP_MODE=read-write and confirm=True.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effects (downtime possible) and the requirement for confirm=True and read-write mode, which are behavioral details beyond the schema. This is good for a mutation tool, though it could also mention reversibility or specific impact, but the key risks are covered.
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 concise, with the main action in the first sentence, followed by critical side effects and requirements in bullet-like lines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given it's a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: side effects and prerequisites. It could be slightly improved by noting that the output schema will report the restart status, but that's minor; the description is sufficient for an agent to call correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description provides context that the 'confirm' parameter is required to be true, which adds meaning to the boolean. However, it doesn't describe the 'app' parameter beyond what the schema shows (just a string), leaving the agent to infer it's the app name. Somewhat helpful but not comprehensive.
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 clearly states the verb 'restart' and the resource 'Dokku app' with context 'all processes'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_app or scale_app, though it doesn't explicitly name a differentiating alternative, but the action is unambiguous.
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 description implies when to use it (when an app needs restarting) and explicitly states prerequisites (requires read-write mode and confirm=True). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisites are clear usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.