List supported cloud providers with pricing, regions, and PTR support info
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_cloud_providers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only listing and specifies the returned attributes, which covers the main behavioral expectations. It does not mention pagination or data freshness, but for a zero-parameter list tool, this is not a significant gap.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('List supported cloud providers') and avoids any filler. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise and well structured.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It fully specifies what the tool returns—cloud providers along with pricing, regions, and PTR support info—without requiring additional context.
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 has no parameters, so the description earns a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the schema is already complete for an empty parameter set.
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 supported cloud providers and enumerates the specific information included (pricing, regions, PTR support). This verb+resource combination unambiguously distinguishes it from all email-related sibling tools, none of which involve cloud providers.
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 phrase 'supported cloud providers' provides clear context that this tool is used to discover available providers and their attributes. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the tool is unique among siblings, so no exclusions are needed; the intended use case is evident.
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.