Run a VCF Orchestrator action synchronously using plain JSON inputs and get its JSON result, line-numbered errors, and logs.
Execute an action synchronously with plain JSON inputs ({inputName: value}) and return its result (converted to plain JSON), error with line number, and logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | 'module/name' or action id | |
| inputs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden but does disclose meaningful behavior: synchronous execution, plain-JSON input coercion, plain-JSON result conversion, error reporting with line number, and logs. It stops short of stating permission requirements or side effects of the executed action.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, packing execution mode, input format, and return shape efficiently. Dense but not padded.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully describes the return payload (result, error with line number, logs). It is largely complete for a run tool, with the main gap being the absence of usage routing against sibling execution tools.
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 50%: 'action' is documented in the schema ('module/name' or action id), while 'inputs' is not. The description compensates by specifying the inputs shape ({inputName: value}), adding real meaning for the undocumented parameter, but says nothing about resolving the action identifier.
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?
States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (action), and notes synchronous execution. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling execution tools (vro_run_workflow, vro_run_script) by naming 'action', though it never explicitly contrasts them.
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?
The description notes it runs synchronously but gives no guidance on when to choose this over vro_run_workflow, vro_run_script, or the async/execution-based tools. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.