civo_list_load_balancersList the load balancers in a region: algorithm, backends (IP, protocol, source/target ports), public IP, state and the Kubernetes service each fronts. Civo: GET /v2/loadbalancers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Region code, e.g. LON1, NYC1, FRA1, PHX1 (see civo_list_regions). Defaults to CIVO_REGION; Civo resources are regional, so pass the region the resource lives in. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it, adding the concrete endpoint (GET /v2/loadbalancers) and the shape of returned data. It does not mention pagination, auth requirements, or result limits, so it is additive but not rich.
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?
One front-loaded sentence covering resource, scope, and return fields, plus a short endpoint reference. Dense but every clause carries information; the endpoint tag is marginally useful for traceability.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (algorithm, backends, public IP, state, Kubernetes service), which compensates for the missing schema. Only pagination/result-size behavior is left unspecified, a minor gap for a one-optional-parameter list tool.
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% and the single region parameter is fully documented in the schema (pattern, examples, CIVO_REGION fallback). The description only echoes the regional scoping, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (list load balancers) narrowed by scope (in a region), and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. No sibling tool lists load balancers, so there is no ambiguity with the other civo_list_* tools.
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 scope phrase 'in a region' implies the intended use and the region parameter, but the description never states when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the purpose rather than stated.
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.