Add a service from a server name and optional settings, saved to the database for later scheduler application; cannot confirm it is live.
Create a service from SERVER_NAME and optional settings. Use update_service to change one. Saved to the database; the scheduler applies it later; this tool cannot confirm it is live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| is_draft | No | Create as draft | |
| variables | No | Service variables | |
| server_name | Yes | Primary server name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / is_draft / descriptionAdded value: +"Create as draft"Input schema / properties / server_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Primary server name"Input schema / properties / variables / descriptionAdded value: +"Service variables"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the change is persisted to the database, the scheduler applies it asynchronously, and the tool cannot confirm the service is live. It doesn't mention validation of names, uniqueness, or what is returned, but the eventual-consistency caveat is the important disclosure an agent 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?
Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the alternative and the behavioral caveat. No sentence is redundant with another, and nothing is padded.
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 three-parameter create tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the alternative, and the async persistence caveat. It leaves the return value (e.g., whether a created service identifier is returned) unstated, which is the only meaningful gap.
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 three parameters (including is_draft and variables) are already documented. The description only restates SERVER_NAME and refers vaguely to "optional settings" without adding semantics such as draft behavior or how variables are substituted. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.
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") plus the key input (SERVER_NAME) and the optional-settings dimension. It also names the sibling that handles the mutation case, so the agent can separate create_service from update_service without inspecting either schema.
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?
"Use update_service to change one" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it, which is the main routing ambiguity in this sibling cluster. It stops short of covering edge cases like when to use convert_service or is_draft instead, so it is clear context rather than exhaustive guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.