Check the status and recent logs of a systemd service by unit name, with an optional target host.
Show the status of one systemd service, including recent log lines.
| 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?
With no annotations present the description carries the full burden. 'Show' correctly implies a non-destructive read, and it discloses a real behavioral trait — that recent log lines are bundled into the response — but it says nothing about permissions, failure behavior for unknown/missing units, or how many log lines are returned.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope ('one service') plus the extra payload ('including recent log lines') both land immediately.
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 two-parameter read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what the tool acts on and what it returns (status plus log lines). Given the absence of annotations it could say more about error cases, but nothing critical for correct invocation is 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%, so the schema already documents both 'host' (default host fallback) and 'name' (unit name with examples); the description adds no further parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.
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 ('Show the status of one systemd service') and scopes it to a single unit, which implicitly separates it from the plural sibling service_list. It never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 usage signal is implied by the verb 'show' — there is no stated when-to-use, no prerequisite (does the unit need to be running?), and no mention of siblings like journal_tail or journal_errors that an agent might otherwise pick for log inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.