lambda_list_firewall_rulesetsList firewall rulesets (id, name, region, rules) that can be applied to instances. Lambda Cloud REST: GET /api/v1/firewall-rulesets.
| 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 the REST endpoint (GET) and the response shape (id, name, region, rules). It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple read-only list operation this is sufficient behavioral detail.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation and key fields, followed by a REST reference. There is no wasted wording, and the structure leads with the action before providing context.
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 description covers the returned fields, the use case, and the underlying REST call, which is essential given there is no output schema. It could mention pagination or limits, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is adequately 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 empty and schema description coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description correctly omits parameter details.
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 explicitly states the action (list) and resource (firewall rulesets), and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, region, rules). The plural 'rulesets' and the mention of 'list' clearly distinguish it from the singular get_firewall_ruleset sibling.
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 context that these rulesets can be applied to instances, implying a use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as lambda_get_firewall_ruleset or lambda_list_firewall_rules. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.
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.