CancelObjectStorageCancels the specified object storage at the next possible date - Cancels the specified object storage at the next possible date. Please be aware of your contract periods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| objectStorageId | Yes | ||
| CancelObjectStorageBody | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that cancellation happens at the next possible date and warns about contract periods, going beyond the basic destructive flag. It also correctly aligns with annotations.
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 opens with a clear sentence but then repeats the exact same phrase after a dash, creating unnecessary redundancy. While the warning about contract periods is useful, the duplication wastes space and undermines conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotation coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks parameter explanations, details about cancellation behavior, and any consequences beyond the contract warning. This is a destructive operation that requires more thorough disclosure.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the four parameters. It fails to mention objectStorageId, x-request-id, or the cancelDate body field, leaving agents without essential guidance on how to construct a valid request.
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 clearly states the action ('Cancels'), the resource ('object storage'), and a specific condition ('at the next possible date'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancelInstance or updateObjectStorage. The verb and resource are 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancelInstance or updateObjectStorage. The warning about contract periods is a cautionary note, not a usage directive. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.