upgradeInstanceUpgrading instance capabilities - In order to enhance your instance with additional features you can purchase add-ons. Currently only firewalling and private network addon is allowed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| upgradeInstanceBody | 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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about purchasing add-ons. However, it does not disclose impact on billing, reversibility, or any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. It also introduces an inconsistency by mentioning 'firewalling' which is absent from the schema.
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 relatively concise with one main sentence and a constraint. Some filler like 'In order to' could be trimmed, but overall it is suitably brief and front-loaded with the key action.
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 mutating operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and a nested body, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavior details, return value expectations, prerequisites, and fails to mention that the schema only supports backup and privateNetworking. The mention of firewalling is a notable omission/inaccuracy that harms completeness.
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 no parameter information and actually conflicts with the schema. It states 'firewalling and private network addon is allowed' but the input schema only contains 'backup' and 'privateNetworking' fields. This mismatch could mislead an agent into trying to invoke a non-existent firewall parameter. The description fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 identifies the action as upgrading instance capabilities by purchasing add-ons, and specifies the scope (instance capabilities). It distinguishes from siblings like assignInstancePrivateNetwork, though not explicitly. The mention of 'firewalling and private network addon' narrows the purpose, but the mismatch with schema fields weakens clarity.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assignInstancePrivateNetwork or createPrivateNetwork. It implies usage for enhancing instances with add-ons but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.
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.