Provisions a cloud-agnostic virtual machine from a specification, using required flavor, image, name, and project ID with optional NICs, disks, tags, and remote access settings.
Create machine POST /iaas/api/machines
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Specification for a cloud agnostic machine. — Machine 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, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating "Create machine" and the endpoint; it does not mention that provisioning is likely asynchronous, how the request is tracked, or what side effects occur.
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 only two lines with no filler, so it is concise, but the structure is under-specified for a complex create operation. Brevity here comes at the cost of useful context rather than through disciplined editing.
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 complex, nested, non-idempotent machine-provisioning mutation with no output schema, and the description provides no operational context. An agent gets no information about provisioning behavior, response handling, or how to choose required fields beyond what the schema already says.
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%, and the nested machine specification is thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema carries the full burden.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create machine", followed by the HTTP endpoint. An agent can tell this provisions a new machine, but it does not distinguish the tool from related siblings such as iaas_create_machine_snapshot or iaas_create_deployment.
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 versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, required permissions, or context about the parent project/deployment. The endpoint line 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.