omv-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

restart_container

Destructive

Restart a single container on OpenMediaVault by name with seconds of downtime. Use it to recover from failures or apply changes.

Instructions

Restart a single container (seconds of downtime).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "restart_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the useful behavioral context of '(seconds of downtime)', which tells the agent about the operational impact. It does not contradict the annotations and provides additional transparency beyond the structured hint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action, scope, and a key side effect. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with a destructive annotation, the description provides core context (action, scope, downtime), but it lacks any description of the required 'name' parameter and does not mention alternative related tools. This leaves some gaps in the overall context needed for fully informed invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one required parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The description fails to clarify what 'name' refers to (container name), its format, or how it relates to the action, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond the schema's bare property name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Restart') and the specific resource ('a single container'), and adds the scope qualifier 'single' to distinguish from restarting a stack. This is a specific verb+resource combination that effectively differentiates from the sibling tool 'restart_stack'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool—restarting a single container—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like 'start_container', 'stop_container', or 'restart_stack'. It does not state exclusions or mention sibling tools, so usage context is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.