get_vps_recommendationReturn a single recommended VPS provider for users who do not yet have a server. Call this ONLY when the user explicitly says they have no server. The user buys the VPS at this provider and comes back with IP + password.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. Description adds context that it returns a recommendation and that the user will buy a VPS, which aligns with read-only behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value with no 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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description is fully complete for the tool's simple purpose.
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?
No parameters exist, so description does not need to add param info. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Description clearly states it returns a single recommended VPS provider for users without a server. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project_info, which cover different resources.
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?
Explicitly specifies when to call: ONLY when user explicitly says they have no server. Also describes the post-call workflow, guiding the agent on what to expect.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: deployment, status, project info, etc. Minor potential confusion between `check_status` and `get_subdomain` since both return status-related information, but their descriptions differentiate them adequately.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., `check_status`, `get_subdomain`, `register_and_deploy`). The `get_vps_recommendation` name is slightly different but still clear. Overall, the naming is predictable and readable.
With exactly 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for deployment management. Each tool fills a necessary role without redundancy, making the set appropriate for the complex task of deploying and managing Fractera installations.
The toolset covers the full deployment lifecycle: registration, deployment, status checking, error recovery, and project information. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for custom domain setup or user profile management, but the core workflow is complete.