Creates a new right associated with a service, enabling fine-grained access control. Use it to define view or modify permissions and implied rights for VCF Automation entities.
Create a new right. Creates a new right associated with a service. POST /cloudapi/1.0.0/rights
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Right |
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 mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the right is tied to a service and the underlying REST path; it says nothing about required permissions, whether an existing name causes a conflict, or what success returns.
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 first two sentences restate each other ('Create a new right' / 'Creates a new right associated with a service'), wasting space. The endpoint line is the only genuinely additive content, so the definition is not front-loaded with new information.
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 single-body-param mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully described nested schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits anything about behavior on duplicate names, permission requirements, or the shape of the created resource, which a caller might reasonably want.
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%, so the nested body (name required, plus category, rightType enum, impliedRights, isPublishable, serviceNamespace) is already documented structurally. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage 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?
A specific verb ('Create') and resource ('right') with scope ('associated with a service') and the backing endpoint POST /cloudapi/1.0.0/rights. It is clearly a creation tool, though it does not distinguish itself from the near-sibling provider_create_custom_rights_category.
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 alternatives such as provider_create_custom_rights_category, provider_query_rights, or provider_get_right, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.