Restart a systemd service on a chosen or default host. Use it to apply changes or recover a failed unit through opsgate with policy checks and approval.
Restart a systemd service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | target host name from the opsgate config; omit for the default host | |
| name | Yes | systemd unit name, for example nginx or docker.service |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that a restart implies downtime (stop then start), that elevated privileges are typically required, or what happens to in-flight connections or dependents. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the verb+resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the transparency gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a virtue in itself.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least mention privileges, downtime, or side effects. The simple two-parameter surface limits the damage, but the definition leaves an agent without the operational context needed to invoke a restart safely.
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 100%, and both parameters (host, name) are documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?
"Restart a systemd service" states a specific verb (restart) and resource (systemd service), which cleanly separates it from siblings like service_start, service_stop, service_reload, and service_status. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb alone is unambiguous enough to route correctly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings service_reload, service_start, and service_stop present, an agent needs to know when a full restart is preferable to a reload or a start/stop pair, and the description offers nothing. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.