List data centers with status and compatibility version for OLVM and oVirt engines. Limit results and target a specific engine.
[READ] Data centers with status (up, uninitialized, maintenance…) and compat version.
Args:
limit: Rows to return, 1-1000 (default 100); truncated says when more exist.
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?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it enumerates possible status values, mentions the compat version field, documents the limit range (1-1000) and default (100), and explains that `truncated` signals more rows exist. Only the pagination mechanics (how to fetch the next page) remain unstated.
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?
Front-loaded with the read tag and resource, then a compact args block. Slight redundancy in restating `limit`'s default of 100, which the schema already carries, but overall the text is tight 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?
With no output schema, the description is responsible for conveying the return shape, and it does so by naming status and compat version plus the truncation flag. For a simple two-parameter read-only lister, nothing critical is missing beyond explicit next-page retrieval instructions.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: `limit` gets a range and default plus the `truncated` interaction, and `target` is explained as an engine target name from config with an omit-for-default rule. Both parameters gain meaning beyond their bare type declarations.
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 names the resource (data centers) and the specific attributes returned (status values like up/uninitialized/maintenance and compat version), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as cluster_list or host_list, which sit in the same listing family.
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] prefix and the note that omitting `target` falls back to the configured default give implicit usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration entry point for data centers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.