Phase 1: Create a cloud VPS with dedicated IP. Generates WireGuard config. Returns the IP and instructions to connect. Supports DigitalOcean, Vultr, Hetzner, OVH.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Cloud region (e.g. nyc1, ewr, nbg1, GRA11). Omit for default. | |
| cloud_api_key | Yes | Cloud provider API key | |
| cloud_provider | Yes | Cloud provider | |
| service_domain | Yes | Domain you own for the email service (e.g. emailrelay.xyz). NS will point here. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the main actions (create VPS, generate WireGuard config, return connection details) but omits important side effects such as cloud charges, irreversibility, and whether existing resources are affected. This is a notable gap for a resource-creating operation.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with 'Phase 1', immediately conveying its purpose. Each sentence provides distinct value: creation, config generation, output, and provider support. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a multi-provider provisioning tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential actions but lacks operational context such as expected duration, idempotency, failure behavior, and cost implications. This is a moderate gap given the complexity and potential side effects of the operation.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the list of supported providers, which aligns with the enum but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not elaborate on region or service_domain, so it does not elevate the score above 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function with specific action verbs: 'Create a cloud VPS', 'Generates WireGuard config', and 'Returns the IP and instructions to connect'. It is distinguished from siblings like provision_resume and provision_status by explicitly labeling itself 'Phase 1', indicating it is the initial step in the provisioning workflow.
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?
The phrase 'Phase 1' provides clear contextual guidance that this is the first step in a multi-phase process, implying use before provision_resume or provision_status. It also lists supported cloud providers, suggesting the user must choose one. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use provision_resume instead), so it falls short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
