server

CYCLOID_BLUEPRINT_STACK_CREATE

Create a new Cycloid stack from a blueprint. CRITICAL: When elicitation context (ctx) is provided, the tool will ALWAYS use interactive elicitation to ask for parameters one by one, REGARDLESS of any parameters provided. The LLM should ONLY provide the 'ref' parameter and let elicitation handle the rest. DO NOT provide name, use_case, or service_catalog_source_canonical when elicitation is available.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes	The blueprint reference (e.g., "cycloid-io:terraform-sample")

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 30, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / ref / description

Added value: +"The blueprint reference (e.g., \"cycloid-io:terraform-sample\")"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object",
+  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
+}

First observedJan 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: interactive elicitation always overrides provided parameters when ctx is present. It omits any mention of permissions, side effects, or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The elicitation warning is front-loaded and capitalized, which is good, but a third of the text is spent forbidding three parameters that are not in the schema and are rejected by additionalProperties: false — wasted and potentially confusing attention.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single input is fully described. But the description's reference to non-existent parameters is inaccurate relative to the actual schema, leaving the agent with contradictory guidance about what it may pass.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already defines 'ref' fully. The description reinforces this by telling the agent to supply only 'ref', which is consistent value-add for a single-param tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Create a new Cycloid stack from a blueprint' — which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings explicitly, though the sibling list is almost entirely read/list tools, so confusion risk is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit operational guidance: when elicitation context is present, only supply 'ref' and let elicitation collect the rest. However, the exclusions reference parameters (name, use_case, service_catalog_source_canonical) that do not exist in this schema, which muddies rather than clarifies the instruction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.