list_public_ipsRetrieve the public IP addresses allocated to your account, with pagination, to review networking resources and IP assignments.
List the public IP addresses allocated to your account.
| 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds only the account-scoping context; it says nothing about pagination behavior (50-item default, 500 cap) even though that materially affects how results are consumed, and there is no output schema to fall back on.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient and easy to parse. The terseness borders on under-specification, but nothing is redundant or buried.
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 tool with complete annotations and a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description is barely sufficient. Its main gap is disambiguation from the four sibling public-IP tools and the absence of any note about paginated results, given there is no output schema to describe 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% — page and pageSize are both documented with defaults, bounds, and a hint to pass page for more results — so the description carries no additional burden. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.
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 and resource ("List the public IP addresses") plus a scope ("allocated to your account"), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named siblings list_public_ips_by_vpc, list_public_ips_by_isolated_network, and get_public_ip, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the names alone.
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 at all: nothing says to call this for an account-wide listing and to use the by-VPC or by-isolated-network variants when filtering. The only signal is the implicit "allocated to your account" scope, which an agent could just as easily read as a filter requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.