Skip to main content
Glama
bacarrdy

VPSnet

by bacarrdy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Validate customer application recipe

validate_application_recipe
Idempotent

Resolve mutable image tags to immutable digests and validate a customer-owned Docker Compose document against target Firecracker worker policy, returning the pinned definition for recipe creation.

Instructions

Resolve image tags from their registries to immutable digests, then validate the resulting customer-owned Docker Compose document with the authoritative policy on the target Firecracker worker. The successful result includes the exact digest-pinned definition to store. This does not create, install, or modify a project or container. The queued validation is polled for about 30 seconds and may still return pending. Retain its ID and resolved_compose_yaml, poll get_application_recipe_validation, and resume recipe creation with the same pinned document and validation_id after valid=true. Requires applications:manage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orderNoYesTenant-owned service order number: 1-64 ASCII letters, digits or hyphens, e.g. VP12345 or VP12345-1
compose_yamlYesDocker Compose YAML. Mutable image tags are resolved once and replaced with immutable sha256 digests before worker validation.
registry_credential_idsNoOwned registry credential UUIDs from list_application_registry_credentials

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.16

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the validation is queued, polled for ~30 seconds, may still return pending, requires applications:manage, and that the digest-pinned document must be retained. These are exactly the operational traits (latency, permissions, persistence) an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the workflow, exclusion, and permission notes all carry weight. It is slightly dense and run-on across six sentences, but nothing is throwaway.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return payload (validation ID and resolved_compose_yaml), the pending state, the polling loop, and the resume condition. An agent has everything needed to invoke and follow through correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so orderNo, compose_yaml, and registry_credential_ids are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces tag-to-digest resolution but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states a precise, multi-step verb chain on a specific resource: resolve image tags to digests, then validate the resulting Compose document on the Firecracker worker. It clearly differentiates from siblings like create_application_recipe and install_application_recipe by declaring it does not create, install, or modify a project or container.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-not ('does not create, install, or modify a project or container') and routes the agent to the follow-on tool (get_application_recipe_validation) with the exact condition to resume (valid=true). This is the pre-validation step in the recipe creation workflow, and it names the adjacent tools by implication.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools