Creates an action secret for VCF Automation ABX by submitting its name, organization, value, and encryption setting.
Create an action secret Creates a new action secret POST /abx/api/resources/action-secrets
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Action secret to create |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that this is a POST create operation, and says nothing about secret sensitivity, value handling, permissions, or response behavior.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the first two lines are redundant: 'Create an action secret' and 'Creates a new action secret' say the same thing. The endpoint line is useful, but the duplication means not every sentence earns its place.
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 a secret-creation mutation with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what is returned, how secret values are handled, whether orgId is required, or why this differs from updating an existing secret.
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 body parameter and its nested fields are structurally documented. The description adds no meaning about the body fields such as name, orgId, value, or encrypted, so the schema does the work and the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 verb and resource: create an action secret. The endpoint path confirms this is a collection POST, which distinguishes it somewhat from get/put/delete secret siblings, though it never names those alternatives.
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?
It provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus abx_put_action_secrets_by_id, abx_get_action_secrets, or abx_delete_action_secret. There is no mention of prerequisites, org scoping, or when creating a secret is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.