Create a new configuration snippet for a Remnawave VPN panel by entering a name and an array of Outbound or Rule objects.
Create a new configuration snippet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Snippet name (alphanumeric, spaces, underscores, hyphens; 2–255 chars) | |
| snippet | Yes | Snippet content — array of Outbound or Rule objects |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation. It does not disclose whether creation is idempotent, whether an existing snippet with the same name is rejected or overwritten, or what response is returned.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse for a simple create operation, though the word 'new' adds little information and the description could have included operational context in place of it.
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?
The tool has only two required parameters and both are fully described in the schema, so an agent can assemble a valid request. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits behavioral context such as uniqueness constraints, overwrite behavior, and expected result, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to handle the response.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both required parameters, including the name pattern and the snippet content type (array of Outbound or Rule objects). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it earns the baseline score for fully documented schemas.
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 states a clear action ('Create') and resource ('configuration snippet'), and the verb separates it from sibling operations like snippets_update, snippets_delete, and snippets_sync. It is not a pure tautology, but it does not elaborate on what a snippet is or how it relates to config profiles.
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 given for when to create versus update, sync, or delete a snippet, and no prerequisites such as name uniqueness or required existing resources are mentioned. The only usage signal is the verb in the tool name, which is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.