lambda_terminate_instancesTerminate (permanently destroy) one or more instances by id. This STOPS billing for them but DESTROYS the instances and any non-persistent data — persistent filesystems survive. Irreversible. Lambda Cloud REST: POST /api/v1/instance-operations/terminate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance_ids | Yes | Ids of the instances to terminate (destroy). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only provide destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: permanent destruction, billing stops, non-persistent data destroyed, persistent filesystems survive, and irreversibility. It also includes the REST endpoint, providing an excellent level of transparency beyond the annotation.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and target, the second provides critical side effects and irreversibility. No fluff or repetition.
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 destructive, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: action, side effects, data persistence, and irreversibility. It lacks an explicit description of the return value, but the REST endpoint hint and overall clarity make it sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
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?
The schema already fully describes the only parameter (instance_ids) with a clear description. The tool description mentions 'by id' but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Given 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Terminate (permanently destroy)') and clearly identifies the resource ('one or more instances by id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like restart and launch by emphasizing permanent destruction and irreversibility.
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 clearly conveys when to use it: when you need to permanently destroy instances and stop billing. It implies contrast with restart (temporary) and launch, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., list_instances vs. launch_instance vs. terminate_instances). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools; even similar resources like firewall_rules and firewall_rulesets are clearly differentiated by name and description.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with the lambda_ prefix, using lowercase and underscores consistently. The verb clearly indicates the operation (list, get, create, delete, launch, update, restart, terminate), and the noun indicates the resource. Minor pluralization differences (e.g., list_instances vs. get_instance) are conventional and do not break consistency.
15 tools is well-scoped for a GPU cloud management server, covering instances, filesystems, firewall rules, images, instance types, and audit events. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and no unnecessary duplication exists.
The instance lifecycle is well covered with launch, get, list, update, restart, and terminate. Filesystem and firewall read operations are present, but firewall rule/ruleset management (create/update/delete) is missing, which is a minor gap that may require working around via the dashboard.