Create a new account tag with a name and optional hex color to organize and filter Contabo resources.
Create a new tag [POST /v1/tags] Create a new tag in your account with attribute name and optional attribute color.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readonly, openWorld, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the POST endpoint and account scope, but omits duplicate-name behavior, permission requirements, and rate limits, and it mislabels color as optional despite the schema requiring it.
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 short and front-loads the endpoint, with no extraneous detail. However, 'Create a new tag' is repeated in both sentences, which is a minor redundancy.
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 full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description gives endpoint and account context. It still lacks duplicate/uniqueness semantics and misstates color optionality, so it is adequate but not complete.
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%, so the schema already documents name, color, description, and x-trace-id in detail. The description adds only a high-level mention of name and color and incorrectly calls color optional when the schema marks it required, which makes it less reliable than the baseline schema-only case.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new tag') plus the POST endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as update_tag or delete_tag, but the creation verb itself distinguishes it.
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 versus update_tag, retrieve_tag, or retrieve_tag_list, and no prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.