Create a new address object in HPE Security Director Cloud to define an IP address or hostname for use in firewall and NAT policies.
Create a new address object. Body typically includes name, description, address_type, ip_address, host_name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Create' implying mutation, but does not mention idempotency, permissions required, error scenarios (e.g., duplicate address), or side effects. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a mutation tool.
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: one sentence plus a list of typical fields. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every part adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating required vs optional fields).
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested body object, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (no output schema), error handling, or how the address object relates to other entities. The typical fields list is helpful but not sufficient for a complete understanding.
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 only describes 'body' as a generic JSON object. The description adds value by listing typical fields (name, description, address_type, ip_address, host_name), which helps the agent construct the request. Schema coverage is 100% but schema is vague, so the description compensates well.
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 (Create) and resource (address object), and lists typical fields like name, description, address_type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sdcloud_update_address and sdcloud_delete_address, but doesn't specify what an address object is used for, which limits differentiation from other create tools.
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 vs alternatives (e.g., sdcloud_create_service). No context on prerequisites, limitations, or whether it should be used before referencing addresses in policies. Implied usage is only from the verb and resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.