retrievePtrRecordsListList PTR records - Get a list of all PTR records, either customer or a list of IPs is required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ips | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| tenantId | No | ||
| customerId | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / x-hapi-auth-stateRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral requirement (customer or IPs must be provided) but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, return format, or what happens if the constraint is unmet. For a read-only list operation, this adds some context but not rich detail.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. There is slight redundancy ('List PTR records' and 'Get a list of all PTR records' say essentially the same thing), but it is not verbose. It earns its place by providing the key requirement, though it could be tightened.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. It only addresses the customer/IP requirement and fails to mention pagination, ordering, search, or the structure of the returned list. For a list endpoint of this complexity, the description leaves significant gaps in context.
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 clarifies the relationship between ips and customerId ('either customer or a list of IPs is required'), which adds value beyond the raw schema. However, it leaves the other 7 parameters (page, size, search, orderBy, tenantId, x-trace-id, x-request-id) completely unexplained, so most parameter semantics remain ambiguous.
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 tool's function: 'List PTR records' / 'Get a list of all PTR records'. It explicitly uses a specific verb (list) and resource (PTR records), and the scope ('all') differentiates it from the singular retrievePtrRecord sibling. The phrase 'either customer or a list of IPs is required' also adds a distinct filtering constraint.
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 implies the use case: to get PTR records, you must provide either a customer or IPs. It gives a clear prerequisite but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like retrievePtrRecord (singular) or other PTR tools. There is no 'when not to use' or exclusion guidance, though the sibling names hint at its role.
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.