list_public_ips_by_vpcRetrieve the public IP addresses allocated to a specific VPC, with pagination support for reviewing larger allocations.
List the public IPs allocated within 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 without the description's help. The description adds only the scoping trait (results constrained to a single VPC) and says nothing about pagination behavior, empty results, or ordering, which with rich annotations lands at an adequate-but-thin 3.
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 no filler or redundancy; the scope qualifier follows immediately after the verb+resource. It is efficient, though it is so terse that there is no structural layering (usage, caveats) to speak of.
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 tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the definition is functionally sufficient to invoke correctly. It is incomplete in that it never mentions that results are paged or what a returned public IP record looks like, and no output schema exists to cover that gap.
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%, so vpcId (UUID), page and pageSize (default 50, max 500) are all documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes that the operation is VPC-scoped, adding no syntax, format, or pagination semantics beyond the structured fields, 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List the public IPs') plus a clear scope ('allocated within a specific VPC'), which lets an agent distinguish this from the broader list_public_ips and from list_public_ips_by_isolated_network by the filtering dimension. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as the alternative, so it is clear but not perfectly differentiating.
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?
The when-to-use case is implied: pick this tool when you want public IPs scoped to one VPC rather than the full account listing. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no reference to the unbounded sibling list_public_ips, and no preconditions such as required permissions or VPC validity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.