vcf-ops-mpb-mcp

Create MPB design

mpb_create_design

Creates an empty HTTP design for a management pack, using the given name as the adapter kind once installed; choose a stable name to avoid creating a second adapter kind.

Instructions

Creates an empty HTTP design. The name becomes the adapter kind once installed, so pick a stable one: renaming later creates a second adapter kind.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "mpb_create_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`version`	No	Pack version, e.g. 1.0.0
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the name is bound to the adapter kind at install time, and renaming later produces a second adapter kind. That is a real consequence an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the naming constraint follows immediately as the actionable caveat.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter creation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is that it does not indicate what is returned (e.g., a design identifier needed for subsequent set_source or install calls), which would help an agent chain operations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate, and it does for the required name parameter by explaining the identity-binding consequence of the choice and advising a stable value. The optional version and description parameters are not mentioned in the description, though version does carry a schema description.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates an empty HTTP design.' The word 'empty' does useful work, implicitly distinguishing this from mpb_import_design, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the starting point before setting sources, installing, or exporting. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as import_design for bringing in an existing design.

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