Run start, stop, reboot, or reserved-IP actions on an AI Lab notebook instance to manage its lifecycle and connectivity.
Execute a control action (start, stop, reboot, attach_reserve_ip) on an AI Lab notebook instance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to execute. | |
| location | No | Location/region code. | |
| project_id | No | Project ID. | |
| instance_id | Yes | Notebook instance ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether stop/reboot are disruptive or destructive, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, permission requirements, or any effect on running workloads or attached volumes.
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 tight sentence with the action type and target resource front-loaded and zero filler. Appropriately sized for a straightforward action tool.
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 is too thin: it never states what the actions do to the instance, whether they are reversible, or what a caller should expect. The schema covers inputs, but the behavioral side is effectively undocumented.
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 includes an enum for 'action', so the structured data already documents the parameters; baseline 3 applies. The description lists some action values but adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond the schema, and actually omits one enum value.
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 ('Execute a control action') and resource ('AI Lab notebook instance') and enumerates the actions, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like e2e_tir_create_notebook or e2e_node_action. However, the enumerated list (start, stop, reboot, attach_reserve_ip) omits detach_reserve_ip, which the schema enum includes, so the description under-reports its own scope.
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 guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as e2e_tir_create_notebook, e2e_node_action, or e2e_action_reserved_ip, and no prerequisites (e.g., instance must exist and be in a suitable state) are stated. The reader must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.