Creates custom naming configurations for IaaS resources by defining name patterns, templates, and counters, so resource names follow consistent project rules.
Create Custom Name POST /iaas/api/naming
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Custom naming instance | |
| apiVersion | Yes | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information refer to /iaas/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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint path: it does not say whether re-creating an existing name fails or overwrites it, what permissions are needed, or what the creation returns.
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?
Two terse lines with no padding, and the verb is front-loaded. It is efficient but under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the endpoint line carries little value for an agent already given annotations naming the route.
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 mutation tool with a deeply nested body (projects, templates, patterns, counters) and no output schema. The description does not explain how the nested naming templates behave or what a successful creation produces, leaving real gaps for an agent composing the payload.
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 the body described as 'Custom naming instance' and apiVersion fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the nested templates/patterns/projects structure, but with the schema carrying that burden this is the expected baseline.
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?
It states a verb and a resource ('Create Custom Name') and gives the REST path, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name, and it does not distinguish this from siblings such as iaas_update_custom_name, iaas_get_custom_name, or iaas_get_all_custom_names, nor does it say what a 'custom name' object actually is.
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 statement of when to use this versus the update/get/delete custom-name siblings, nor any prerequisites (for example, needing existing projects or resource types). The only context given is the HTTP method and path, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.