list_vpsList the account's managed VPS instances with id, plan, specs, status, region and SSH host. Call this first to discover vps ids for power_vps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | How many VPS instances the account has. | |
| instances | Yes | One entry per VPS instance. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the returned fields and the typical use case (discovering VPS IDs), which is useful context beyond the structured data.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds value.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema and good annotations, this description is fully sufficient. It says what it lists, why to call it, and what to do with the output.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the output is used for (discovering VPS IDs for power_vps), which helps agents interpret the result even though there are no input params.
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 it lists the account's managed VPS instances with specific fields (id, plan, specs, status, region, SSH host). It distinguishes from sibling list_servers by focusing on VPS instances and mentions the specific use case for power_vps.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this first to discover vps ids for power_vps', providing a clear when-to-use. It does not enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context around VPS instances is sufficient for an agent to select this tool.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: server lifecycle, backups, files, console, stats, player activity, and VPS power operations are clearly separated. Even similar reads (get_server vs get_live_stats vs get_player_activity) have well-defined scopes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_server, list_backups, restart_server, power_vps). The verbs are clear and the naming style is uniform throughout.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but appropriate given the dual scope of game server management and VPS management. Each tool covers a meaningful operation without being bloated.
The tool surface covers the primary workflow: discovering servers, managing lifecycle, backups, files, and console access. Minor gaps exist (no restore backup, no server settings update, no delete server) but these are likely intentional safety boundaries and do not block core usage.