Creates a new IaaS tag with a required key and optional value to organize and categorize VCF Automation resources.
Create Tag Create a new tag POST /iaas/api/tags
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Specification for a tag — Tag specification | |
| 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. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path: it does not say whether duplicate keys error out, what scope the tag is created in, or what is returned on success.
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, but two of the three lines duplicate the name and the endpoint path rather than front-loading new information. There is no wasted length, yet also almost no content that earns its place.
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 mutating tool with a nested request body and no output schema, and the description does not compensate for that complexity: nothing about tag scoping, uniqueness constraints, error behavior, or the shape of the response. An agent can call it, but cannot predict its effects.
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 'key' and 'value' documented inline, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no semantics of its own (e.g. uniqueness of key, whether value is optional in practice), which is the baseline expectation when the schema is complete.
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 verb+resource pair 'Create a new tag' is specific enough to identify the operation, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name, and the third line ('POST /iaas/api/tags') is the same information in another form. Nothing distinguishes it from sibling tag tools such as iaas_get_tags or iaas_delete_tag beyond the verb.
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 guidance on when to use this versus iaas_get_tags, iaas_get_tags_usage, or iaas_delete_tag, and no preconditions (scope, required permissions, whether the tag must be attached to a resource) are given. The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.