Create or import a PEM certificate and private key into OpenWISP to enable device or VPN authentication, with optional CA linking.
[Category: Certificates & VPN] Create or import a certificate. (HTTP POST /api/v1/controller/cert/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ca | No | CA UUID or ID | |
| name | Yes | Certificate name | |
| certificate | No | PEM certificate for import | |
| private_key | No | PEM private key for import |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write/import operation but says nothing about authorization requirements, whether an imported certificate needs both certificate and private_key, or what happens on duplicate names.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded: category tag, then the action, then the endpoint. No wasted words, though the brevity contributes to the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no return-value description, the definition leaves too much unspecified — especially the create-vs-import fork, which is the single most important thing an agent must get right here.
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 each of the four parameters is already documented with its meaning. The description's phrase 'create or import' hints that certificate/private_key are for the import path, but adds no format or pairing rules beyond the schema.
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 pair (create or import) plus the resource (certificate), and the category tag plus HTTP endpoint confirm the domain. It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from siblings like openwisp_update_cert or openwisp_renew_cert, but the create-vs-mutate distinction is reasonably clear.
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?
No guidance on when to create a fresh certificate versus importing an existing one, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a CA. The agent has to infer usage 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.