Execute Terraform commands to manage infrastructure as code, including init, plan, apply, and destroy operations for cloud resource provisioning.
Execute Terraform commands (init, plan, apply, destroy, validate, output, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| workingDir | Yes | ||
| varFiles | No | ||
| vars | No | ||
| autoApprove | No | ||
| useLocalstack | No | ||
| backendConfig | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| lockTimeout | No | ||
| refresh | No | ||
| workspace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 mentions 'Execute Terraform commands' which implies mutation capabilities (apply, destroy), but doesn't warn about destructive operations, authentication requirements, state management implications, or error handling. For a tool with potentially destructive actions like 'destroy', this is insufficient.
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 - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes helpful examples. Every word earns its place with no 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 complex tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address Terraform's state management, authentication, destructive operations, or parameter usage. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant external knowledge.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 12 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'action' does, what 'workingDir' represents, or the purpose of other parameters like 'autoApprove', 'backendConfig', or 'target'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 verb ('Execute') and resource ('Terraform commands') with specific examples of commands (init, plan, apply, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on Terraform rather than AWS or other infrastructure tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like AWS CloudFormation or other infrastructure-as-code approaches. The description only lists what commands can be executed without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.