Verda Cloud MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool creates a volume and returns details, it lacks critical information such as permissions required, whether the volume is immediately usable, potential costs, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (creation operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like permissions or error handling, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an agent.

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 effectively adds meaning by explaining each parameter: 'name' is for identification, 'size' is in GB with a default from config, and 'volume_type' is a string with a default. This clarifies semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify allowed values or constraints for 'volume_type'.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'block storage volume', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'attach_volume' or 'list_volumes' by focusing on creation rather than attachment or listing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a volume can be created independently or requires an instance), nor does it differentiate from other volume-related tools like 'attach_volume' or 'detach_volume' in terms of use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.