list_load_balancer_rulesList load balancer rules for a public IP by IP UUID to inspect traffic routing; supports pagination for reviewing large rule sets.
List load balancer rules on a public IP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ipId | Yes | Public IP identifier (UUID) whose load balancer rules 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 by structured data. The description adds only the scoping constraint that results are per public IP, with no information about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when the IP has no rules — minor gaps given the annotation coverage.
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 zero redundant wording. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the differentiation or behavioral detail the tool could benefit from.
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, fully schema-documented list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it leaves the agent guessing how this differs from the many other rule-listing siblings and says nothing about the shape or size of the returned rule set.
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 the schema already documents ipId (UUID), page (1-indexed, default 1), and pageSize (default 50, max 500). The description's "on a public IP" restates the required ipId parameter and adds nothing about paging semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ("List") and resource ("load balancer rules") plus a scope ("on a public IP"), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish this from near-siblings like list_firewall_rules, list_port_forwarding_rules, or list_load_balancer_instances, which share the same naming pattern.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternative rule-listing tools in the sibling set. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the "on a public IP" scope; an agent must decide on its own that this is the right list call versus firewall or port-forwarding rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.