Create a new SWP profile object for security configuration. Submit a JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema to define it.
Create a new SWP profile 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create' but does not mention side effects (e.g., idempotency, overwrite behavior, permissions needed, or deployment triggers). This is a significant gap.
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 very concise (one sentence) but under-specified. It is efficient in length but fails to provide necessary detail, making it less valuable than it could be.
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 parameter, no output schema, many siblings), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the role of SWP profiles, how to construct the body, or what the response indicates. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.
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 'body' parameter has high schema coverage (100%), but the description adds no additional meaning. The schema describes it as a 'JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema,' which is vague. The description could have clarified required fields or common properties.
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 resource (SWP profile object), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like sdcloud_update_swp_profile or sdcloud_delete_swp_profile, which could confuse an agent.
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, list). There are no prerequisites or context about typical workflows. The agent is left to guess based solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.