retrieveApiPermissionsListList of API permissions - List all available API permissions. This list serves as a reference for specifying roles. As endpoints differ in their possibilities not all actions are available for each endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| apiName | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: permissions vary by endpoint. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response structure, or any other operational details that might be needed. With annotations covering safety, this is a middle score.
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 three short sentences and is front-loaded with the core purpose. The opening phrase 'List of API permissions' is redundant with the title, but the rest is efficient and free of fluff.
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 read-only list tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should explain pagination, filtering, ordering, and what the response contains. It only provides the purpose and a caveat, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool.
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 input schema has six parameters with zero description coverage. The description does not explain page, size, apiName, orderBy, or the ID fields. The caveat about endpoint-specific possibilities hints at apiName but does not explicitly define it. This under-compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 explicitly states the action ('List') and resource ('all available API permissions'), and clarifies the list is a reference for specifying roles. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as retrieveInstancesList or retrieveRoleList.
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 clear context: the list is a reference for roles, with a caveat that not all actions are available per endpoint. While it doesn't name alternatives or explicit exclusions, no direct sibling tool duplicates this functionality, so the guidance is sufficient.
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.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.