Create a service object for HPE Security Director Cloud by specifying name, description, service type, and protocols to define network services for firewall policies.
Create a new service object. Body typically includes name, description, service_type, protocols.
| 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 are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only hints at typical body fields but does not disclose side effects (e.g., auto-generated ID, state changes), error conditions, or authorization needs.
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 front-load the purpose and immediately provide actionable parameter details. No redundant or filler content.
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?
For a creation tool with a generic body parameter, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks explanation of required vs optional fields, expected return values, validation rules, and any post-creation behavior.
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 describes the body parameter generically as matching a target schema. The description adds value by listing typical fields (name, description, service_type, protocols), which helps the agent construct the body more effectively than the schema alone.
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 tool creates a new service object (verb+resource). However, it does not differentiate this tool from many sibling create tools (e.g., sdcloud_create_address, sdcloud_create_device), leaving ambiguity about which type of service is being created.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, required permissions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.