Plan and apply administrator-approved, version-pinned provider lifecycle actions—install, connect, disconnect, or import keys—using an approval digest, without inferring proprietary commands.
Plan/apply an administrator-approved, version-pinned provider lifecycle recipe. No inferred proprietary commands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apply | No | ||
| tx_id | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| approval_digest | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful constraints like version-pinning, administrator approval, and no inferred proprietary commands, but omits critical behavior: whether actions are destructive, what apply toggles semantically, approval/transaction requirements, and side effects of disconnect or import_key.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core verb, and the second sentence adds a meaningful constraint. However, it is jargon-heavy and under-specified rather than genuinely clear.
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?
This is a potentially mutating lifecycle tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides high-level framing but lacks essential operational context to invoke it safely and 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 description coverage is 0% for four parameters. The description loosely hints at plan/apply and administrator approval, but never explains the action enum values, tx_id, approval_digest format, or how apply changes behavior.
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 states a specific verb pair ('Plan/apply') and resource ('provider lifecycle recipe'), but 'recipe' and 'proprietary commands' are opaque jargon. It does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like enclave_transaction, enclave_doctor, or enclave_capabilities.
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?
It implies an administrator-approved prerequisite and suggests planning versus applying, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many enclave_* and node_* siblings. There is no action-specific routing or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.