vcf-ops-mpb-mcp

Build and install the management pack

mpb_install

Builds a management pack from a VALID or VERIFIED design and installs it on the VCF Operations instance, waiting for deployment; requires confirm: true and rejects unverified designs.

Instructions

Builds the pack from the design and installs it on this VCF Operations instance, waiting for the deployment. Refuses a design that is not VALID/VERIFIED, because MPB then silently does nothing. Requires confirm: true.

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": {
      "designId": "<designId>"
    },
    "name": "mpb_install"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wait`	No
`confirm`	No	Must be true to actually perform this destructive change
`designId`	Yes	MPB design UUID (see mpb_list_designs)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the call blocks while waiting for the deployment, that it fails fast on non-VALID/VERIFIED designs, and why the failure is dangerous (MPB silently does nothing). That is real behavioral context that readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint do not convey. It does not say what a successful call returns or whether repeated installs are idempotent, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the refusal condition, then the confirm requirement. Every clause carries actionable information and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 mutating install tool with three parameters, no output schema, and modest annotations, the description covers the main risks: validation gate, blocking wait, and the confirm guard. The remaining gap is the return/result behavior and how to check progress afterwards, which the description leaves to the status sibling without saying so.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining the two behavioral parameters: confirm must be true or the change is not performed, and the call waits for the deployment (the wait parameter's effect). designId is left to the schema, which already documents it and points at mpb_list_designs.

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 gives a specific compound verb (builds and installs) plus the target resource (the pack, on this VCF Operations instance), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling such as mpb_verify_design or mpb_ship, so the agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names alone.

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?

It states a clear precondition for use (the design must be VALID/VERIFIED) and a hard gating requirement (confirm: true), which tells the agent when a call will be refused. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to run first, such as verification or status polling, so the workflow context is implied rather than spelled out.

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