list_plansStep 1 of renting a real Linux server. Lists AgentMetal VPS plans (vCPU/RAM/disk, USD/day + USD/mo, included egress). After you pick a plan, call get_payment_options for the exact payment, then provision by POSTing to the API 402 or running the local @agentmetal/mcp (which pays from your wallet).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation, but does not explicitly state safety, absence of side effects, or any return format/pagination details. It adds workflow context but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then specifics, then next-step guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the workflow continuation is relevant for an agent planning multi-step actions.
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?
Despite no output schema or annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns (plan specifications, USD pricing, egress) and how to proceed. For a zero-parameter listing tool, this is sufficient for correct invocation and follow-through.
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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail because there are none, but it effectively describes the output content (plan specs and pricing), which compensates for the lack of an output 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 identifies the tool's action ('Lists AgentMetal VPS plans') and the specific attributes (vCPU/RAM/disk, USD/day + USD/mo, included egress). It also frames it as 'Step 1' of a rental workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_payment_options.
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 positions the tool as the initial step in a renting process and instructs calling 'get_payment_options' afterward. This provides clear sequential guidance and differentiates when to use this tool versus its siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list_plans provides plan catalogs, get_payment_options details payment methods, list_servers enumerates provisioned servers, and get_server fetches a single server's status. No two tools overlap in function.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'list' for collection operations (list_plans, list_servers) and 'get' for single-item operations (get_payment_options, get_server). The style is uniform and predictable.
The server has 4 tools, perfectly scoped for its stated purpose of providing plan/payment info and server status without provisioning. It's neither too sparse nor overloaded.
The informational workflow is covered: list plans, get payment options, list servers, and get server details. The lack of provisioning tools is intentional per the description, so no major gaps exist, though a few minor niceties like fetching a single plan would be possible additions.