lambda_create_filesystemCreate a new persistent filesystem in a region (can then be attached to instances at launch). Lambda Cloud REST: POST /api/v1/filesystems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Filesystem name (1-60 chars, must start with a letter, then letters/digits/hyphens — pattern ^[a-zA-Z]+[0-9a-zA-Z-]*$). | |
| region | Yes | Region to create the filesystem in (e.g. 'us-east-1'). |
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?
The description contradicts the annotation. The annotation declares destructiveHint: true, but creating a filesystem is a non-destructive, additive operation. The description itself does not mention any side effects, costs, or other behavioral traits beyond the creation action. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent about the tool's safety profile.
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 concise and front-loaded: a single main clause stating the purpose, a parenthetical clarifying usage, and the REST endpoint for reference. There is no wasteful wording, and every clause adds information.
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 simple create operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the practical downstream use (attaching to instances). It could be more complete by noting whether the operation is idempotent or what the return value is, but given the low complexity, it is largely sufficient.
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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (name with pattern and region with example). The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 set by the high schema coverage.
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 action ('Create a new persistent filesystem') and specifies the resource and scope ('in a region'). It also notes that the filesystem can be attached to instances at launch, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lambda_delete_filesystem and lambda_list_filesystems.
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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a new persistent filesystem is needed and possibly to be attached to instances. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for a creation tool with no similar sibling.
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 targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., list_instances vs. launch_instance vs. terminate_instances). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools; even similar resources like firewall_rules and firewall_rulesets are clearly differentiated by name and description.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with the lambda_ prefix, using lowercase and underscores consistently. The verb clearly indicates the operation (list, get, create, delete, launch, update, restart, terminate), and the noun indicates the resource. Minor pluralization differences (e.g., list_instances vs. get_instance) are conventional and do not break consistency.
15 tools is well-scoped for a GPU cloud management server, covering instances, filesystems, firewall rules, images, instance types, and audit events. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and no unnecessary duplication exists.
The instance lifecycle is well covered with launch, get, list, update, restart, and terminate. Filesystem and firewall read operations are present, but firewall rule/ruleset management (create/update/delete) is missing, which is a minor gap that may require working around via the dashboard.