Submit a day-two action request for a specific deployment resource by resource ID, including action ID, inputs, and reason. Use it to initiate resource operations through VCF Automation.
Resource action request. Submit a resource action request. POST /deployment/api/resources/{resourceId}/requests
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Represents a resource day-two request | |
| resourceId | Yes | Resource ID (path) |
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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description only repeats the HTTP verb/path already present in the annotation title. It adds nothing about whether the request is queued for approval, whether it returns a request ID, or what happens on duplicate submission.
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?
Very short, but two of the three lines are redundant ("Resource action request." restates the name; the POST path duplicates the annotation title) and none of the space is spent on the information an agent actually lacks.
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?
This is a mutating, non-idempotent, open-world submission with a nested body object and no output schema, so the description should explain the request lifecycle and result. Instead it provides only a REST route, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.
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 resourceId and the body fields (reason, actionId, inputs) are already documented structurally; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond that, notably not explaining what the opaque `inputs` object should contain for a given actionId.
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 gives a verb ("Submit") and a resource ("resource action request") plus the REST path, so the general intent is graspable. But "resource action request" is never explained (day-2 operation on a deployment resource?), and the near-identical sibling deployment_submit_resource_action_request is not distinguished, leaving the agent unable to tell them apart.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, no mention of the close sibling deployment_submit_resource_action_request or of deployment_get_resource_actions / deployment_list_resource_requests for discovery. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.