lambda_list_filesystemsList your persistent filesystems (id, name, region, status, created_at) that can be attached to instances at launch. Lambda Cloud REST: GET /api/v1/file-systems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds only the fields returned and the API endpoint. No additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or scoping details are disclosed. The description is accurate but not rich beyond the annotation.
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 that are front-loaded with the main action ('List your persistent filesystems') and include essential details without any waste. Every word contributes 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 parameterless list operation, the description covers the what (persistent filesystems), the key fields returned, and the use case (attachable at launch). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently communicates return values, so it is 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with no parameters, the baseline of 4 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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as listing persistent filesystems with specific fields (id, name, region, status, created_at), and distinguishes it from sibling create/delete filesystem tools. It also states the REST endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list filesystems that can be attached to instances at launch. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately among sibling list tools.
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 targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., list_instances vs. launch_instance vs. terminate_instances). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools; even similar resources like firewall_rules and firewall_rulesets are clearly differentiated by name and description.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with the lambda_ prefix, using lowercase and underscores consistently. The verb clearly indicates the operation (list, get, create, delete, launch, update, restart, terminate), and the noun indicates the resource. Minor pluralization differences (e.g., list_instances vs. get_instance) are conventional and do not break consistency.
15 tools is well-scoped for a GPU cloud management server, covering instances, filesystems, firewall rules, images, instance types, and audit events. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and no unnecessary duplication exists.
The instance lifecycle is well covered with launch, get, list, update, restart, and terminate. Filesystem and firewall read operations are present, but firewall rule/ruleset management (create/update/delete) is missing, which is a minor gap that may require working around via the dashboard.