list_network_acl_rulesRetrieve the rules of a network ACL list by list ID, with optional pagination, to inspect allowed and denied traffic in American Cloud networking.
List the rules within a network ACL list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, 1-indexed. Defaults to 1. | |
| listId | Yes | ACL list identifier (UUID) whose rules to list. | |
| 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 without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about pagination behavior, default ordering, empty results, or what happens with an invalid listId.
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 resource front-loaded, so it is structurally fine. The brevity tips into under-specification rather than economy, since the sentence could have absorbed routing or pagination guidance at no structural cost.
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, annotated, three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient — an agent can call it correctly from name plus schema. It omits result ordering and pagination expectations that would matter when an ACL has many rules, and gives no hint of the return shape.
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 (default 50, max 500) and listId all documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only echoes that listId identifies the ACL whose rules are returned, adding no format or edge-case 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 (rules within a network ACL list), so an agent knows it is a read operation returning ACL rule entries. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_network_acl_rule (single rule) or list_network_acl_lists (the parent lists), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The description never says to use get_network_acl_rule for a single rule or list_network_acl_lists to discover list IDs, which is exactly the routing decision an agent faces among these siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.