list_database_flavorsRetrieve available database flavors for a specified cloud region, so you can choose a compatible database plan before provisioning.
[READ] OpenAPI IaaS 1.0: GET /regions/{region}/databases/flavors (ecc/v1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | Cloud Server region id from official docs, e.g. ir-thr-c2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the OpenAPI version and HTTP method, which is useful metadata, but does not disclose pagination, return format, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Extremely concise, one sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the [READ] marker and endpoint, though the brevity sacrifices explanatory 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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fails to explain what a 'flavor' is (DBaaS compute sizing) or what fields are returned, and gives no context to distinguish from other list tools. With no output schema, the description should carry more burden than it does.
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 required parameter 'region' is already thoroughly documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a read operation on database flavors via the OpenAPI route, which conveys the resource and verb but relies almost entirely on the endpoint path rather than a plain-language explanation. It distinguishes the tool somewhat by naming the specific endpoint, yet the purpose is vague without reading the URL structure.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like list_flavors (compute) or create_database. The [READ] tag implies read-only, but there is no explicit context or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.