shutdownShutdown compute instance / resource by its id - Shutdown an compute instance / resource. This is similar to pressing the power button on a physical machine. This will send an ACPI event for the guest OS, which should then proceed to a clean shutdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral detail: it sends an ACPI event for a clean guest OS shutdown, similar to pressing the power button. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the mechanism.
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 near-verbatim repeat of the title ('Shutdown compute instance / resource by its id - Shutdown an compute instance / resource'), which is redundant. The ACPI analogy is useful, but the first half should be trimmed for 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?
For a straightforward shutdown action, the description covers the core behavior and key parameter. However, with no output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and no mention of return values or prerequisites, there are some gaps, though it is reasonably 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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'by its id' which clarifies instanceId, but leaves x-trace-id and x-request-id completely unexplained, so it adds minimal parameter semantics.
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 ('Shutdown') and target ('compute instance / resource'), and the ACPI analogy distinguishes it from likely siblings like 'stop' or 'restart'.
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 graceful shutdown via ACPI but never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'stop' or 'restart'. It provides context but no explicit exclusions or alternative references.
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.