Create an SSL initiation object with name, protocol version, cipher strength, and default local certificate to define SSL settings.
Create a new SSL initiation object. Body typically includes name, protocol_version, cipher_strength, default_local_cert.
| 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 carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing objects), required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. Only the action 'create' is implied, but without further details.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and no superfluous words. Every part earns its place.
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 that this is a create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., created object ID or status), success/error behavior, or any prerequisites. The mention of 'body typically includes' is helpful but insufficient for an agent to use it reliably.
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 has one parameter 'body' with a generic description. The description adds value by listing typical fields (name, protocol_version, etc.), providing concrete guidance beyond the schema's 'JSON request body matching the target schema'.
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?
Description clearly states 'Create a new SSL initiation object', specifying the verb and resource. It also lists typical fields (name, protocol_version, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools (list, get, update, delete) that are present in the sibling list.
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?
Usage is implied: use when you want to create an SSL initiation object. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparison with alternative tools (e.g., updating an existing one). The sibling names suggest a CRUD set, but the description does not clarify the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.