list_block_storage_snapshotsRetrieve snapshots for a specified block storage volume by UUID, with pagination controls for browsing results.
List the snapshots taken of a specific block storage volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Volume identifier (UUID) whose snapshots to list. | |
| page | No | Page number, 1-indexed. Defaults to 1. | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page (max 500). Defaults to 50; pass page to fetch more. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds only the scoping constraint and says nothing about ordering of results, empty results, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema documents.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves gaps that more useful wording could have filled without bloat.
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 read-only list operation with rich annotations and complete schema documentation, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits what a returned snapshot looks like and offers no routing guidance among the many snapshot-related siblings, which is the main remaining gap.
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 all three parameters (id, page, pageSize) are documented in the schema, including page defaults and the 500 max. The description's mention of a 'specific volume' merely restates the id parameter, adding no format or semantic detail 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (snapshots) and constrains scope to snapshots of a 'specific block storage volume', which distinguishes it from the broader list_snapshots sibling by scope. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so the differentiator is inferred from the phrasal scope rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be used when it has a volume ID and wants that volume's snapshots. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer list_snapshots over this tool, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.