vcf-ops-mpb-mcp

Raw MPB / Suite API call

mpb_api_call

Read-only

Calls arbitrary /internal/mpbuilder/* or /api/* Suite API paths to handle requests not covered by other tools; read-only mode blocks non-GET methods.

Instructions

Calls any /internal/mpbuilder/* or /api/* path (relative to /suite-api) for cases the other tools do not cover. Non-GET methods are not available in read-only mode.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "mpb_api_call"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No
`path`	Yes	e.g. /internal/mpbuilder/designs/{id}/requests
`query`	No
`method`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: paths are relative to /suite-api, and non-GET methods are blocked in read-only mode. That second sentence also resolves the tension between a POST/PUT/DELETE enum and readOnlyHint=true. However, nothing is said about error behavior for invalid paths, response shape, or side effects when the server is not in read-only mode.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, with the scope of allowed paths front-loaded before the fallback rationale and the mode restriction. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an open-world passthrough with no output schema and an untyped body parameter, the description covers the base path and the read-only restriction but leaves the agent guessing about valid path discovery, payload expectations, and failure modes. The essential facts to invoke it are present, but a raw API escape hatch typically warrants a warning about mutation risk in non-read-only mode.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25% and 'body' is declared as an untyped empty object, so the description would need to compensate. It does add real meaning for 'path' (relative to /suite-api) and 'method' (non-GET unavailable in read-only mode), but says nothing about what 'body' and 'query' should contain or how they are forwarded to the underlying API.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource set: it calls any '/internal/mpbuilder/*' or '/api/*' path, and positions itself as the fallback for 'cases the other tools do not cover'. An agent can immediately tell this is a raw passthrough, not one of the specific mpb_* operations. It stops short of a 5 because no individual sibling is named as the preferred route for common cases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear routing rule: use this only when the dedicated tools don't cover the case, which effectively tells the agent to try siblings first. It does not spell out when-not-to-use beyond that, nor any prerequisites (auth, permissions, whether a path must be discovered elsewhere) before making a call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.