retrieveSnapshotsAuditsListList history about your snapshots (audit) triggered via the API - List and filters the history about your snapshots your triggered via the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| changedBy | No | ||
| requestId | No | ||
| startDate | No | ||
| instanceId | No | ||
| snapshotId | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the audit history is 'triggered via the API' and mentions filtering, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not disclose pagination, response format, or ordering behavior, so it only modestly supplements 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?
The description is redundant, with the second clause 'List and filters the history about your snapshots your triggered via the API' essentially repeating the first sentence and containing a typo. It is short but wastes space on duplication rather than adding informative details.
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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is minimal. It lacks any explanation of filtering semantics, pagination, sort behavior, or response structure. Even the 'triggered via the API' scope is vague. More detail is necessary for an agent to invoke this 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the 11 parameters. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving semantics of parameters like orderBy, x-request-id, and instanceId unexplained. The parameter names provide some clues, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 lists and filters audit history for snapshots triggered via the API. It uses a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like retrieveSnapshotList or other resource audit lists. The intent is unmistakable.
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 when to use it: to see API-triggered audit history for snapshots, as opposed to listing actual snapshots. It provides a clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list includes retrieveSnapshotList, making the distinction understandable.
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.