Creates a VCF Automation blueprint from a blueprint object containing name, YAML content, project, and sharing settings through the blueprint API.
Creates a blueprint POST /blueprint/api/blueprints
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Blueprint object | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information please refer to /blueprint/api/about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether a version is auto-created, whether content YAML must be valid first, what permissions or project scope are required, or what happens on duplicate names.
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-loads the action, but the second line ('POST /blueprint/api/blueprints') merely restates the annotation title and adds no decision-relevant information for an agent.
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 nested-body mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits what the caller gets back (e.g., created blueprint id), whether the new blueprint is a draft or released, and how it relates to version/mapping creation flows. The rich schema covers inputs, but the operational context is missing.
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 nested body fields (name, content, projectId, organizationSharings, requestScopeOrg) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about required combinations or field interactions, so the baseline 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 verb+resource pair is explicit: 'Creates a blueprint.' However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as blueprint_create_blueprint_from_mapping, blueprint_create_blueprint_version, or blueprint_update_blueprint, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which creation path applies.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative creation tools in the sibling set. The only extra text is the raw endpoint path, which conveys nothing about selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.