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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the call is safe. The description adds workflow context (user buys and returns) that goes beyond the annotation's safety signal.
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, no filler. First sentence conveys purpose and condition, second sentence provides actionable next step. Front‑loaded and efficient.
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?
Adequate for a simple zero‑parameter tool, but lacks explicit description of the output format (e.g., expected fields like provider name, plan). With no output schema, the description should clarify what 'recommended VPS provider' means structurally.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.
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?
Clearly states the tool returns a single recommended VPS provider for users without a server. Unambiguous verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling info tools by its specific subject.
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 states when to call: only when user explicitly says they have no server. Implies when not to use (if user has a server) and provides step‑by‑step expectation of subsequent user action.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: status checking, project info, subdomain retrieval, VPS recommendation, deployment registration, and retry. No two tools could be confused for the same task.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_status, get_project_info, register_and_deploy). The naming is predictable and clear.
Six tools is appropriate for the server's scope—deploying and managing a single Fractera server. Each tool is essential and covers the core workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the main deployment lifecycle: recommendation, deploy, status check, subdomain retrieval, and retry. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update deployment configuration or list historical deployments), but the core user journey is complete.