Powers on a specified machine in VCF Automation using its machine ID, enabling second-day power-on operations through the IaaS API.
Power-on operation for machine Second day power-on operation for machine POST /iaas/api/machines/{id}/operations/power-on
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the Machine. (path) | |
| 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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint, but does not explain what happens if the machine is already powered on, whether it is queued/async, or what the 'second day' distinction means.
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?
The description is short but wastes a line on the redundant and unclear 'Second day power-on operation for machine' phrasing, which restates the first line rather than front-loading new information. The endpoint path is useful but the core intent is repeated.
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?
For a simple single-id mutation with full schema coverage and annotation coverage, the essentials are present. However, it omits the operation semantics an agent would need (async behavior, effect on already-running machines), leaving a gap beyond the bare endpoint disclosure.
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 only two parameters (id required, apiVersion optional), both documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?
The first line states a clear verb and resource ('Power-on operation for machine'), but the second line ('Second day power-on operation for machine') is confusing boilerplate that adds no clarity, and the definition never distinguishes this from the many sibling power-state tools like iaas_power_off_machine, iaas_reboot_machine, or iaas_reset_machine.
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 versus iaas_restart_machine, iaas_reboot_machine, iaas_reset_machine, or iaas_power_off_machine, all of which are present as siblings. The 'second day' phrasing hints at a scenario but never explains it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.