Executes semicolon-delimited compound lifecycle recipes in one request, enabling AI agents to apply multiple context-crystal node and task transitions without extra roundtrips.
Execute compound semicolon-delimited atomic transition recipes (e.g. 'node add -s "..." demo; task done -t task-1 demo'). Maximizes efficiency by minimizing roundtrips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commands | Yes | Semicolon-separated compound crystal commands |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether the batch is transactional (does one failing command abort the rest?), what permissions are required, or what happens on partial failure — and the word 'atomic' is ambiguous about whether it describes each command or the whole batch.
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 sentences with the purpose stated first and the efficiency rationale second, plus an inline example. Nothing is wasted, though the example sentence is dense and could be set apart for readability.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and input format adequately but omits failure/ordering semantics and error behavior — the main things an agent needs to safely batch mutating commands.
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 already 100% for the single 'commands' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's bare 'semicolon-separated' phrasing by giving a concrete worked example showing subcommand syntax and quoting, which materially clarifies the expected format.
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 (Execute) and resource (compound semicolon-delimited atomic transition recipes), and the example makes the compound/batch nature concrete. It is distinguishable from single-transition siblings like crystal_task_transition, though it never names them 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?
The clause 'Maximizes efficiency by minimizing roundtrips' implies the tool is for batching multiple commands in one call, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when NOT to batch, nor names the singular sibling tools as the alternative for one-off transitions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.