retrieveVipListList VIPs - List and filter all vips in your account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | ||
| ips | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| ipVersion | No | ||
| dataCenter | No | ||
| resourceId | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| resourceName | No | ||
| resourceType | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| resourceDisplayName | No |
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 known. The description adds minimal extra context: it states the operation is a list/filter within the account. However, it does not disclosure behavioral details such as pagination behavior, response format, or required authentication beyond what the schema indicates.
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 concise, consisting of a title-like phrase and a clarifying sentence. There is minor redundancy ('List VIPs' vs 'List and filter...'), but it is short and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word largely earns its place, though the first phrase could be omitted.
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?
Given the complexity (15 params, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is under-specified. It fails to list the available filter dimensions, mention pagination (page/size), or describe the return structure. For a tool with many optional filters, more detail is needed to be complete.
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 there are 15 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only says 'List and filter', which broadly indicates that parameters may be used for filtering, but it does not explain any specific parameter's meaning or how to use them. This leaves the agent with little guidance for correctly selecting/formatting parameters.
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 'List and filter all vips in your account', specifying the verb (list/filter), the resource (VIPs), and the scope (your account). This distinguishes it from the sibling retrieveVip (singular), which presumably fetches a single VIP.
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 its usage as a list/filter operation for VIPs but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like retrieveVip or retrieveVipAuditsList. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving usage to be inferred from the name and verb.
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.