Create a named service credential for CI/CD pipelines. Returns proxy credentials and configuration commands to use in pipeline environment variables or config files. Each pipeline or environment should have its own credential for auditability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Descriptive name for the credential (e.g. "GitHub Actions", "GitLab CI") | |
| firewall_id | Yes | Firewall public ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable context about return values ('proxy credentials and configuration commands') and auditability traits. Missing: idempotency behavior, cleanup/deletion capability, failure modes, or side effects on existing credentials.
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?
Three well-structured sentences with zero waste: purpose declaration, return value description, and usage guideline. Front-loaded with specific verb and resource. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Appropriate for low complexity (2 primitive params, no nested objects). Compensates for missing output schema by describing conceptual returns. Mentions auditability constraint. Could improve by noting credential lifecycle (reversible? deletable?) but adequate for the scope.
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 coverage is 100% with complete descriptions for both 'name' (including CI/CD examples) and 'firewall_id'. Description reinforces the CI/CD context aligning with the name examples, but adds no additional parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema baseline.
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?
Specific verb 'Create' with clear resource 'named service credential' and specific context 'for CI/CD pipelines'. Distinguishes from sibling roll_proxy_credential by focusing on initial creation for pipeline use cases rather than rotation.
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?
Provides explicit best practice: 'Each pipeline or environment should have its own credential for auditability'. Clear positive guidance on use case (CI/CD pipelines) and what to do with outputs (environment variables/config files). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative comparison.
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.
