Create a Cloud Foundry service instance on SAP BTP by specifying the marketplace service, plan, and instance name, with optional JSON configuration parameters.
Create a service instance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | Service plan name | |
| config | No | JSON configuration parameters (optional) | |
| service | Yes | Service name from marketplace | |
| instanceName | Yes | Name for the service instance |
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 behavioral burden, yet it adds nothing beyond the name: no mention of provisioning being asynchronous/long-running, required permissions, idempotency on duplicate instance names, or that creating may need billing/plan acceptance. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is sparse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely economical. Nothing is padded, but nothing is earned either.
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 tool that performs an org/space-scoped, potentially async mutation, the description omits prerequisites, side effects, and failure modes. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should be doing far more work than it does.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (service, plan, instanceName, config) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint hints, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a service instance'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like cf_bind_service (bind an existing instance) or cf_marketplace (discover services), so an agent must infer the boundary from the tool name alone.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites such as needing a targeted org/space (cf_target) or that the service must already exist in the marketplace (cf_marketplace). The agent is left to infer the entire workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.