Creates a load balancer in VCF Automation IaaS by defining network interfaces, routes, project, and deployment settings to route traffic to target members.
Create load balancer POST /iaas/api/load-balancers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Load balancer configuration. — LoadBalancer Specification instance | |
| apiVersion | No | 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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not obligated to repeat the safety profile. But it adds no behavioral context at all: no note that this provisions real infrastructure via an external API, no indication that the call is non-idempotent (repeating it creates duplicate load balancers), and no mention of permissions or async 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 second line merely repeats the annotation title (POST /iaas/api/load-balancers) and the whole text is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. No sentence adds information an agent could not get from the name and annotations.
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 provisioning call with a deeply nested body and no output schema, yet the description omits what the response contains (e.g., a request tracker or load balancer ID), whether the operation is asynchronous, and what happens on failure. The rich schema compensates for parameter-level detail, but behavioral and result-shape context are absent.
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?
With 2 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents `body` (including required nested fields name, nics, projectId, routes) and `apiVersion`. The description contributes no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 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 says 'Create load balancer', which names the verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name and adds only the raw REST path (POST /iaas/api/load-balancers). Nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as iaas_scale_load_balancer, iaas_get_load_balancer, or iaas_delete_load_balancer beyond the obvious create/read/delete naming.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., a projectId, an existing network or deployment), or what alternatives to consider. The agent must infer everything from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.