Creates a network profile for a specified region, defining isolation type, load balancers, and security groups to configure networking for cloud resources.
Create network profile POST /iaas/api/network-profiles
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | NetworkProfile 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 safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond restating the POST path — no statement about side effects, whether the profile is immediately usable, what happens on duplicate names, or required permissions.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded, but the second line just repeats the endpoint path already present in the annotation title, so not every element earns its place. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.
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?
A mutating create tool with a large nested body, no output schema, and no description of required fields, isolation-type behavior, or what the call returns. For an agent to call this correctly it must rely entirely on schema archaeology plus the annotations.
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 body documents name, regionId, tags, isolationType, and the various ID lists in detail, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning beyond it; baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create network profile"), so an agent knows the operation itself without opening the schema. It makes no attempt to distinguish this from siblings such as iaas_create_network, iaas_update_network_profile, or iaas_create_storage_profile, and never says what a network profile 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., a region must exist, regionId is required), and no mention of how this differs from creating a network or a storage profile. The only signal is the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.