Attach a standalone volume to a VPS in the same region. Confirm the action to start the asynchronous process, then check volume task status for completion.
Attach a standalone volume to a VPS (same region). Requires confirm=true. Asynchronous — poll get_volume_task_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vps_id | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| volume_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) only signal non-readonly status, which is weak. The description adds real value by disclosing the operation is asynchronous and telling the agent to poll get_volume_task_status. It could go further by noting what a successful attach looks like or how failure is surfaced, but the async disclosure is genuinely useful.
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?
Three tight sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the mandatory precondition and the async behavior. Every sentence earns its place.
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 with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the critical operational facts: scope (same region), required confirm flag, and async polling behavior. It is slightly incomplete on what the agent should check when polling to confirm success and what the immediate response looks like, but these are minor gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the confirm parameter by stating confirm=true is required, which is the only non-obvious parameter. However, volume_id and vps_id are left self-evident and no additional context (e.g., that the volume must not already be attached) is provided for them.
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 (attach), the resource (standalone volume), and the target (VPS) with useful qualifiers ('same region'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like detach_volume and makes its scope obvious without opening the schema.
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?
Provides the confirm=true precondition and instructs the agent to poll get_volume_task_status afterward, which is helpful operational guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., when a volume should be attached vs. installed-with-OS) or mentions prerequisites like checking list_attachable_vps_for_volume first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.