createAssignmentCreate a new assignment for the tag - Create a new tag assignment. This marks the specified resource with the specified tag for organizing purposes or to restrict access to that resource.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tagId | Yes | ||
| resourceId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| resourceType | Yes | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / x-hapi-auth-stateRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the operation is destructive and not read-only. The description adds useful context by explaining that the assignment may restrict access to the resource, which is not apparent from annotations alone. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like idempotency, duplicate handling, or whether existing assignments are overwritten.
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 two sentences, but the first sentence is essentially a restatement of the title, and the second sentence is slightly wordy. It could be compressed into one concise sentence without losing key information.
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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal behavioral annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not mention what the response contains, what happens if the resource already has the tag, or any prerequisites. The access-restriction note is helpful but insufficient for a full understanding.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely refers to 'the specified resource' and 'the specified tag' without mapping to actual parameters (tagId, resourceId, resourceType, etc.). No details are given about allowed values, formats, or the meaning of resourceType, leaving the agent to guess.
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 that the tool creates a new tag assignment, marking a resource with a tag for organizing or access restriction purposes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createTag (which creates the tag itself) and deleteAssignment. However, the opening phrase is a near-verbatim repeat of the title, adding minor redundancy.
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?
The description implies the tool is used to attach a tag to a resource, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus other assignment tools (e.g., assignIp, assignInstancePrivateNetwork) or any prerequisites such as the tag and resource needing to exist. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.