preview_operationValidate a named Cloudflare operation and return its exact local method, path, query, body, and profile before execution. No request, auth, or policy checks performed.
Validate a named operation and return its exact local method/path/query/body/profile. No request, auth validation or provider policy checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arguments | Yes | ||
| operation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that no request is sent and no auth/provider policy validation occurs — an important scoping fact an agent could not infer from the annotations.
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?
Two tight sentences: the positive purpose is front-loaded and the negative scoping caveat follows immediately. No filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (method/path/query/body/profile). However, for a tool with a nested, undocumented 'arguments' parameter it should say how arguments map to the operation, which is the main missing piece.
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 gestures at 'a named operation' matching the enum, but says nothing about the required 'arguments' object (a nested structure that presumably supplies the operation's inputs), leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 (validate) and resource (a named operation), and specifies exactly what it returns: the local method/path/query/body/profile. This distinguishes it from siblings like apply_dns_batch and preview_dns_batch, though it never names them explicitly.
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 clause 'No request, auth validation or provider policy checks' communicates a negative boundary (this is a local/syntactic preview only), which implicitly suggests using a real apply tool when provider validation is needed. But it never states when to choose this over get_operation_schema or preview_dns_batch, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.