Create a reusable module (a typed config fragment referenced by handle) and optionally deploy it to staging or production. spec_yaml is base64-encoded YAML of the module body; module_type is the config struct it represents (e.g. Database).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | ||
| role_uuid | No | ||
| spec_yaml | Yes | ||
| permission | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| module_type | Yes | ||
| deploy_staging | No | ||
| deploy_production | No | ||
| organization_uuid | No |
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. It mentions creation and optional deployment but omits critical behavioral traits like idempotency, uniqueness of handle, permission requirements, or side effects on existing resources.
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 with front-loaded main action. Efficient but could add concise details for more parameters without lengthening much.
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?
Despite 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of handle semantics, return value, success conditions, and deployment behavior.
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 0%. Description explains spec_yaml (base64-encoded YAML) and module_type (config struct), but the remaining 7 parameters (handle, role_uuid, permission, description, deploy_staging, deploy_production, organization_uuid) are not described, leaving the agent unsure about their purpose and format.
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 what the tool does: create a module and optionally deploy it. It uses specific verbs and resource type, distinguishing it conceptually from configs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_config, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_config, update_module). It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for deployment, or when to choose module creation over other operations.
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.