ppdm-mcp-server

dd_create_storage_unit

Creates a DDBoost storage unit on Data Domain, assigns a DDBoost user, and optionally sets a soft quota in GiB.

Instructions

Create a new DDBoost storage unit on Data Domain.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "user": "<user>"
    },
    "name": "dd_create_storage_unit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Storage unit name
`user`	Yes	DDBoost user to assign
`quota_gib`	No	Soft quota in GiB (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the name collides with an existing unit, or what the quota soft limit implies. For a mutating create tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap. Only the mutation nature itself is conveyed by the verb "Create."

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or hedging. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A three-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain side effects and result behavior, and this one does not. Nothing tells the agent what a successful creation returns or what preconditions must hold.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, user, quota_gib) are already documented, and the description adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond them. Baseline 3 is the correct ceiling when the schema does all of the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb plus resource: "Create a new DDBoost storage unit on Data Domain." An agent immediately knows this is a create operation against DDBoost storage units. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as dd_list_storage_units or reference the DDBoost user concept beyond the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the referenced DDBoost user must already exist), no note on when to prefer this over any alternative workflow. The reader is left to infer everything about context from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.