list_vpc_networksRetrieve Virtual Private Cloud networks and their tier subnets, with pagination, to inspect or select networks before managing cloud resources.
List Virtual Private Cloud networks, which contain multiple tier subnets.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the domain fact that VPC networks contain tier subnets; it says nothing about pagination limits, ordering, or result size beyond what the schema already implies.
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 the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the relative clause about tier subnets is the only extra content and the sentence could have carried one routing hint at no length 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?
The tool is simple (0 required params, full schema coverage, rich annotations) so the low detail is largely acceptable. However, with no output schema the description could at least say what a listed network looks like or that results are paginated; the paging behavior is only discoverable in the schema.
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 only two optional paging parameters, both fully documented in the schema (1-indexed page, pageSize max 500 default 50). The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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 and resource ('List Virtual Private Cloud networks') plus a useful structural gloss ('contain multiple tier subnets'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_vpc_network, list_isolated_networks, or list_public_ips_by_vpc, so an agent must infer from the name alone which network-listing tool applies.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The only hint is the verb 'List' versus the sibling 'get_vpc_network', which the description never addresses; nothing tells the agent whether this returns all networks in the account or a scoped subset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.