Create a new sandboxed HPC workspace with a persistent directory. Supply a unique instance ID to initialize an isolated environment for executing commands.
Create a new sandbox instance with a persistent workspace directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Input for the create_instance tool. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral trait—the workspace directory is persistent—but it does not disclose side effects, failure behavior (e.g., duplicate instance_id), permissions, or whether creation is synchronous or asynchronous.
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 description is a single, well-front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation and the most important behavioral characteristic efficiently.
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 relatively simple creation tool with full parameter documentation, the description is mostly adequate: it names the operation and the key persistence trait. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits information about return values, lifecycle expectations, and error conditions that would make it more complete.
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 input schema already documents both instance_id and description. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the high schema coverage makes this acceptable; the persistence detail provides useful resource context.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('new sandbox instance'), and adds a defining trait ('persistent workspace directory'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_instance, archive_instance, and list_instances.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and resource: you call this when you need a new sandbox instance. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.