createObjectStorageCreate a new object storage - Create / purchase a new object storage in your account. Please note that you can only buy one object storage per location. You can actually increase the object storage space via POST to /v1/object-storages/{objectStorageId}/resize
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| createObjectStorageBody | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write/destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the one-per-location purchase limit and the ability to resize via a POST endpoint. This clarifies constraints and follow-up actions, which is valuable behavioral disclosure.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a critical constraint and resizing alternative. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.
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?
The description covers the key limitation (one per location) and the resize path, but it omits other context such as required parameters, costing, permissions, or response format. Given the nested object schema and absence of output schema, more details could be expected, but the essential creation intent is clear.
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 description provides zero information about parameters (region, totalPurchasedSpaceTB, autoScaling, displayName). Schema description coverage is 0% for top-level parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. Even though nested schema fields have descriptions, the tool description adds no semantics, leaving agents to inspect the schema for details.
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 states a specific action ('Create / purchase a new object storage in your account') with a clear resource (object storage). It distinguishes from sibling tools like updateObjectStorage or CancelObjectStorage by focusing on creation/purchase. The verb and resource are explicit.
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 provides context on when to use the tool (to create/purchase object storage) and implicitly when not to (not for resizing), explicitly pointing to the resize endpoint for increasing space. It also notes a per-location limit, which guides usage decisions. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives but offers a clear path for scaling.
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.