Check if a specific Huawei Cloud service is available in a target region. Use before creating resources to prevent failures from regional unavailability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | Region ID: cn-south-1, cn-north-4, ap-southeast-3, etc. | |
| service | Yes | Service name: ecs, obs, rds, gaussdb, cce, modelarts, functiongraph, etc. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only check ('Check if') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not describe authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response format is (e.g., boolean, error, etc.). The lack of an output schema makes this gap more significant.
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 two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides the usage context. There is no redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers purpose and usage. However, it omits details about the return value and error behavior, which are not covered by the schema or annotations. Without an output schema, the agent cannot know what the tool returns, so the description is not fully 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 100%, so both 'region' and 'service' are already well-documented with examples in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating that the service is specific and the region is a target. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check if') and resource ('specific Huawei Cloud service... in a target region'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also adds a use case ('before creating resources') that helps distinguish it from sibling tools like listing regions or service catalogs, which serve different purposes.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use before creating resources to prevent failures from regional unavailability'), giving clear context. However, it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of the 5-level guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.