List OLVM clusters with compatibility version, CPU type, and memory over-commit policy. Supports optional limit and target to narrow results.
[READ] Clusters with compatibility version, CPU type and memory over-commit policy.
Args: limit: Rows to return, 1-1000 (default 100). target: Engine target name from config; omit to use the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It includes the [READ] marker, implying a safe read operation, and lists the data fields. However, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or any side effects—though for a simple list tool these may be minimal. It adds some context but not rich 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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the [READ] marker and purpose appear first, followed by a clearly separated Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no filler.
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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states what is returned, how to limit results, and how to specify a target. It lacks details on ordering or any additional filters, but these are not critical for a basic enumeration 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?
The schema provides only types and defaults, with no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining the limit range (1-1000, default 100) and the target's meaning (engine target from config, omit for default). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on the format or constraints beyond the schema.
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 states the tool lists clusters and specifies the fields returned (compatibility version, CPU type, memory over-commit policy). It is distinct from sibling tools like datacenter_list and host_list, so the purpose is unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the appropriate tool for enumerating clusters, nor does it suggest other tools for different scenarios (e.g., host_list for hosts). No exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.