Unregister a vSphere provisioned machine by its ID to remove it from IaaS management without deleting the underlying VM.
Unregister a vSphere provisioned machine POST /iaas/api/machines/{id}/operations/unregister
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the vSphere 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 the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the description only needs to add context — but it adds nothing beyond restating the REST path. It does not explain the key behavioral question for this operation: whether the underlying VM is destroyed or merely detached from inventory, or what happens to associated network IPs (cf. sibling iaas_release_unregistered_network_ips).
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?
Two short lines with the action front-loaded. The second line duplicates the annotation title verbatim, so it is redundant rather than wasteful, but the whole thing is appropriately sized.
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 state-changing operation with no output schema, the description should clarify the effect of unregistering and whether it is recoverable. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to predict outcomes or side effects before calling.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, apiVersion) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the id's semantics or versioning behavior beyond what the schema already states.
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 names a specific verb ('Unregister') and resource ('vSphere provisioned machine'), so the basic action is inferable. However, 'unregister' is an ambiguous term in this API surface and the description never distinguishes it from close siblings like iaas_delete_machine or iaas_suspend_machine, nor does it say what unregistering leaves behind.
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 delete/suspend/power-off siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the choice purely from the tool name and must guess at consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.