Create a new IPS signature object in Security Director Cloud by submitting the required JSON body. Define custom intrusion prevention signatures to enhance threat detection.
Create a new IPS signature object.
| 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?
The description only states 'Create', implying mutation, but provides no details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate creation. With no annotations, the description fails to disclose key behavioral traits.
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, consisting of a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
Despite many sibling tools and a complex nested parameter, the description provides no context about the IPS signature resource, required fields, or what the tool returns. No output schema compounds the lack of completeness.
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 described in the schema as a JSON request body matching a target schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3.
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 'IPS signature object'. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools (list, get, update, delete) by explicitly mentioning creation.
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 (e.g., update or list). There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.