deleteTagDelete existing tag by id - Your tag can be deleted if it is not assigned to any resource on your account. Check tag assigments before deleting tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tagId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so mutation is expected. The description adds valuable behavioral context: deletion is contingent on the tag not being assigned to any resource, and it warns to check assignments first. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the condition for success, though it doesn't specify the exact outcome if the tag is assigned or the response format.
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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the primary action and then add the key precondition. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.
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 simple delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential precondition (must be unassigned) and a recommended pre-check. However, it does not explain what happens after a successful deletion (e.g., response format, permanent removal), nor does it describe error cases or the purpose of the required request ID headers. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only clarifies that deletion is 'by id', which maps to tagId, but it does not explain the required x-request-id or optional x-trace-id parameters. These could be standard headers, but the description does not mention them, leaving them under-specified given the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Delete existing tag by id' which clearly identifies the action (delete) and resource (tag) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like createTag, updateTag, and retrieveTag. The method of identification (by id) is also explicit, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 a clear precondition: 'Your tag can be deleted if it is not assigned to any resource on your account.' It also advises checking tag assignments before deleting. This offers practical guidance on when deletion is allowed, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use other tag operations. The guidance is sufficient for safe usage.
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.