list_kubernetes_packagesList available Kubernetes node packages and their sizing and pricing tiers before creating a cluster, with pagination to browse all options.
List the available Kubernetes node packages (sizing/pricing tiers) for cluster creation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and mutation profile are fully covered. The description adds only the notion that results are 'available' packages, with nothing on pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether the catalog is region-dependent.
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 the resource named immediately and the disambiguating parenthetical attached inline. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 paginated read-only list endpoint with fully documented parameters and complete read-only annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that without an output schema the agent gets no hint about what fields a package record contains (size, price, slug), but that is a minor omission at this complexity level.
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 both parameters (page, pageSize) carry their own defaults and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented two-parameter 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 sentence gives a specific verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('Kubernetes node packages'), and the parenthetical '(sizing/pricing tiers)' disambiguates what a package is. It is clearly distinct from list_vm_packages and list_kubernetes_versions by naming Kubernetes node sizing, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.
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?
'for cluster creation' implies the usage context but is stated as purpose rather than instruction. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_vm_packages (for virtual machines) or get_vm_package_by_label, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.