list_network_acl_lists_by_vpcRetrieve the network ACLs associated with a specific VPC, with pagination support for browsing large result sets.
List the ACL lists belonging to a specific VPC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, 1-indexed. Defaults to 1. | |
| vpcId | Yes | VPC identifier (UUID). | |
| 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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination behavior, empty-result handling, or whether results are scoped strictly to the VPC. With annotations the bar is lower, but there is still zero added 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?
A single short sentence with no wasted words and the scope constraint front-loaded. It is concise but borders on under-specification rather than dense information.
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?
The tool is a simple read-only paginated list with full schema documentation and clear annotations, so nothing critical is missing. Still, the description could note pagination or result ordering; it is adequate rather than complete.
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%, with page, pageSize and vpcId all documented including defaults and the 500-item maximum. The description only confirms the vpcId is a VPC scoping filter and adds no syntax, format, or pagination detail, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (ACL lists) scoped to a specific VPC, which distinguishes it from the unfiltered sibling list_network_acl_lists. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the two, so the differentiation is only implied by 'by VPC'.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given beyond the implied constraint of needing a VPC ID. It never says to prefer list_network_acl_lists when no VPC filter is known, nor mentions prerequisites such as the VPC existing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.