Start a stopped systemd service by unit name, optionally on a target host, with opsgate policy checks and human approval for changes.
Start a stopped 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 and falls short. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, whether elevated permissions/sudo are required, whether it enables the unit at boot, or what happens on failure or if the service is already running.
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 six-word sentence that front-loads the verb and the state precondition. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema, the basics are covered, but with zero annotations the description should disclose permission requirements and behavior when the service is already running. Those operational facts are missing.
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% – both 'host' and 'name' are documented with format examples in the schema. The description adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already supplies, 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 (Start) and resource (systemd service), with the added precondition that the target is stopped. It implicitly separates itself from sibling mutations like service_restart and service_stop, though it does not name those alternatives.
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 phrase 'a stopped service' implies the usage condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to service_restart/service_stop for other states. Usage must be inferred from the state adjective alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.