Attach a security group to a compute node to control inbound and outbound network access. Provide the VM ID and security group ID to apply the rules to that instance.
Attach a security group to a compute node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm_id | Yes | Compute node VM ID. | |
| location | No | Location/region code. | |
| project_id | No | Project ID. | |
| security_group_id | Yes | Security group ID to attach. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Attach' implies a mutation, but nothing is said about idempotency, whether it replaces or combines with existing groups, required permissions, failure conditions, or reversibility. Only the bare operation is disclosed.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the operation and target; every word earns its place. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, so not a full 5.
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 and no output schema, the description omits what an agent most needs: whether the call is idempotent, what it returns, error behavior, and required preconditions. The two optional params (location, project_id) usage is also unexplained.
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 the four parameters are already documented (vm_id, security_group_id, location, project_id). The description mentions a security group and compute node but adds no format, ID conventions, or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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) plus resource (security group) and target (compute node), so the agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It does not explicitly name the sibling e2e_detach_security_group, but the attach/detach distinction is self-evident from the verb.
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 use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the group and node must exist, node must be in a compatible state). The agent must infer all context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.