Create a new firewall group to organize and manage firewall rules for your Vultr cloud infrastructure.
Create a new firewall group.
Args: description: Description for the firewall group ctx: FastMCP context for resource change notifications
Returns: Created firewall group information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that a group is created and that information is returned, and it mentions ctx resource notifications, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the group is initially empty and later populated via firewall_create_rule.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by structured Args/Returns sections. The inclusion of a non-schema ctx argument is slightly unhelpful, but the overall format is clean and scannable.
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 one-parameter create operation with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the input and the return value. It lacks broader firewall context, such as the group being a container for rules, and relies entirely on sibling names for selection context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only restates that 'description' is the group's description and introduces a 'ctx' argument that is absent from the input schema. This can mislead an agent into thinking ctx is a callable parameter, and no format, length, or uniqueness constraints are given.
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 opening sentence 'Create a new firewall group' identifies a specific verb and resource, clearly marking this as a creation operation distinct from the sibling update/delete/list group tools. It does not explicitly contrast with firewall_create_rule, but the resource name 'group' provides enough differentiation.
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 is provided for when to use this tool or what precedes/follows it, such as 'create a group before adding rules with firewall_create_rule'. There are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must 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.