rollbackSnapshotRevert the instance to a particular snapshot based on its identifier - Rollback the instance to a specific snapshot. In case the snapshot is not the latest one, it will automatically delete all the newer snapshots of the instance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | ||
| snapshotId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| rollbackSnapshotBody | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specific behavioral context: if the snapshot is not the latest, it automatically deletes all newer snapshots. This goes beyond the annotation safety flag and provides meaningful consequence information, though it doesn't cover auth or other side effects.
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 core action, and every word adds value. It efficiently communicates the primary purpose and the key side effect without fluff.
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 moderate complexity (destructive rollback with nested body, no output schema), the description covers the main behavioral consequence (deleting newer snapshots) and benefits from annotations. However, it lacks parameter explanations and any note about return values or errors, so it's adequate but not fully complete.
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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It indirectly clarifies that snapshotId is the snapshot's identifier, but instanceId, x-request-id, and rollbackSnapshotBody are left undefined. With 5 parameters and no descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 verb 'revert'/'rollback' and the resource ('instance to a particular snapshot'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like createSnapshot or deleteSnapshot. The title and description align and provide a specific action.
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 usage context is implied by the verb 'revert' – it's used when you want to roll back an instance to a snapshot. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., reinstallInstance, rescue), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. So it gets a '3' for implied 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.