list_snapshotsRetrieve volume snapshots in your account with their IDs, source volumes, and types to review storage backups and audits.
List all volume snapshots in your account with their IDs, source volumes, and types.
| 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content detail (IDs, source volumes, types) for a tool with no output schema, but 'List all' sits awkwardly against the schema's paged page/pageSize model and no result-set size or pagination behavior is described.
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, and the returned-field list is placed where it is useful. It could be strengthened rather than shortened, since every clause carries 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?
Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields is valuable and partially complete. It nonetheless omits how paging interacts with 'all', omits snapshot status or filters, and gives no disambiguation against the near-identical block-storage snapshot siblings.
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 both parameters (page, pageSize) carry defaults and bounds in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; it does not compensate for the 'List all' wording that implies unpaged results.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all volume snapshots in your account') and names the returned fields. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_block_storage_snapshots', which on its face covers the same resource, leaving an agent unsure which list tool to call.
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, no mention of prerequisites or account scoping constraints, and no steering toward 'get_snapshot' for single-item retrieval or away from 'list_block_storage_snapshots'. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.