Provision a pre-configured container stack with common settings for media, dev, monitoring, or custom workloads. Specify hostname and IP to deploy instantly.
Provision a pre-configured container stack (template) with common settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IP address | |
| name | Yes | Container hostname | |
| domain | No | Optional domain for web access | |
| stackType | Yes | Type of stack to provision |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pre-configured' and 'common settings' but does not explain side effects (e.g., creating containers, potential destruction of existing resources), whether the operation is reversible, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a provisioning action.
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 a single, concise sentence that gets to the point quickly. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, for a provisioning tool with multiple parameters and potential complexity, the brevity might be too extreme, but it does not contain wasted words, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal, lacking details about the provisioning process, what 'common settings' entails, expected outcomes, or any prerequisites. An agent would not have enough context to understand the full implications of calling this tool, especially compared to the richer sibling tools. This is incomplete for a provisioning action.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only generically refers to 'common settings'. Since the schema already documents each parameter well, the description adds no additional semantic value, but the baseline holds.
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 (provision) and the resource (pre-configured container stack/template), and notes 'common settings'. It is specific about what it does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_container, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or contrasts with sibling tools such as create_container or list_containers. The only context is the general provisioning statement, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.