Create a new application object with name, description, category, risk, and application mapping to define and classify applications for security policy management.
Create a new application object. Body typically includes name, description, category, risk, application_mapping.
| 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 description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens if the application already exists. It only states the creation action and typical fields.
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?
Two concise sentences. First states purpose, second provides typical body fields. No redundancy, efficient.
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?
No output schema exists, but description does not mention return value (e.g., created object or ID). It also neglects error conditions, nested object structure hints, or any context about the Security Director Cloud environment. Incomplete for a creation tool.
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 single parameter 'body' is vaguely described in schema as a JSON object matching a schema. The description adds typical fields (name, description, category, risk, application_mapping), providing some meaning beyond the schema, but lacks specifics on required fields or format constraints.
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 action ('Create') and the resource ('application object'), and lists typical body fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'sdcloud_update_application' by implying this is for new objects.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sdcloud_update_application). No mention of prerequisites or scenarios where creation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.