Execute an allowlisted hardware action, such as reset_board or pause_print, subject to approval policy; optionally return a post-action timeline sheet.
Execute a configured allowlist action (e.g. 'reset_board', 'pause_print'). Subject to approval policy. If observe_seconds is configured, returns post-action timeline sheet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | Optional arguments | |
| name | Yes | Allowlisted action name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the allowlist constraint, the approval-policy gate, and the conditional return of a post-action timeline sheet when observe_seconds is configured. It does not state whether actions have destructive/irreversible side effects or what happens on approval failure, leaving key behavioral questions open for an execution tool.
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?
Three tightly packed sentences with the verb and constraint front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though the middle sentence about approval policy could be slightly more concrete.
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 an execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the allowlist, approval gate, and conditional return shape, which is a reasonable minimum. It is incomplete on side effects, reversibility, and error behavior, which matter for a tool that triggers configured actions.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds marginal value by giving concrete example action names and by tying observe_seconds to a return-behavior change, but adds no argument syntax or format detail.
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 ('Execute a configured allowlist action') and anchors it with concrete examples ('reset_board', 'pause_print'), so an agent can distinguish it from the read-only siblings like get_status and capture_image. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
'Subject to approval policy' implies a precondition for invocation, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other tools, or what to do if the action is not allowlisted or approval is denied; usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.