Retrieve data center inventory with status and compatibility version, using optional limit and target for precise monitoring.
[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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden itself. It states [READ], indicating a non-mutating operation, and explicitly discloses the `truncated` signal when more rows exist. It does not cover every edge case (e.g., error behavior or ordering), but for a simple read/list tool it adds meaningful behavioral context.
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-loaded: the read marker and returned content appear first, followed by a tight two-item Args list. Every sentence carries information with no filler or repetition.
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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the parameters and key output indicators (status, compat version, truncated). It is adequate to call correctly, though it stops short of fully specifying the response shape or explicit use cases.
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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: `limit` gets a row count range, default, and the `truncated` consequence; `target` gets source and default behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare integer/string schema types.
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 identifies the resource as data centers and the returned content (status, compat version) with a [READ] marker, making it distinguishable from list tools for clusters, hosts, VMs, and storage domains. It lacks an explicit 'List all data centers' verb phrase, but the intent is not ambiguous.
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 offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the resource name; the parameter notes are about arguments, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.