list_serversGet all cloud servers in a specified ArvanCloud region. Provide the region ID (e.g., ir-thr-c2) to see instances available for management.
[READ] List instances in a data center region. Official: GET /ecc/v1/regions/{region}/servers. Example region from docs: ir-thr-c2.
| 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description only restates this with '[READ]' and the official GET path; it adds no behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, or response shape beyond what the annotations already 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?
The description is compact and front-loads the operation and scope. The endpoint and example region are directly relevant, and there is no filler or repeated material beyond the minimal [READ] marker.
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 single-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the needed purpose, scope, and region example. It is slightly incomplete because it never mentions the v3 sibling or expected output shape, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 already documented with an example in the schema. The description repeats the example region from docs but adds no format constraints, allowed values, or other semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?
The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (instances in a data center region), and supplies the official endpoint. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling list_servers_v3 or explain when this v1 endpoint is preferred, so it misses the sibling differentiation needed for a 5.
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 [READ] tag and 'List instances in a data center region' imply the basic use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to list_servers_v3, get_server, or create_server. The intended usage is inferable from the name and description, but routing among server-list siblings is left to the reader.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.