Creates form designer elements from a JSON request schema, enabling VCF Automation forms to be built from schema definitions via the form-service API.
Generate designer elements for a given request schema. POST /form-service/api/forms/designer/elements
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The request schema Also accepts: $ref, $data, $dynamicDefault. | |
| sourceId | No | The request source id | |
| sourceType | No | The request source type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-destructive character is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether generated elements are persisted, what the service does with them, or what auth/context is required. Restating the POST path duplicates the annotation title rather than adding information.
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 and front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the second line merely repeats the HTTP route already present in the annotation title and therefore does not earn its place. Two sentences, one of which is filler.
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 input body is a deeply nested recursive JSON Schema object and there is no output schema, yet the description never indicates what the generated 'elements' look like or what shape to expect back. For a tool of this complexity, the description is far too thin to let an agent call 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%, with body, sourceId, and sourceType all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify what 'request schema' means semantically or how sourceId/sourceType influence element generation, so it contributes nothing on top of the schema.
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 (generate) and object (designer elements) driven by a request schema, but 'designer elements' is unexplained jargon and there is no differentiation from closely named siblings such as form_generate, form_generate_json_schema, and form_generate_elements_runnable_item. An agent cannot tell which of these four generating tools to pick from the text alone.
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, and no mention of any alternative tool. The near-identical sibling form_generate_elements_runnable_item in particular is left unaddressed, so the selection decision must be inferred from schemas.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.