Batch query status and hardware specs for 1–100 instances by UUID, sharing one paginated list and returning per-instance results and errors.
批量查询 1–100 个实例 UUID 的状态和硬件规格，共享一次列表分页。返回 instances 与逐项 errors；价格来源未验证时 price 为 null，不代表免费。不会返回密码或 SSH 凭证。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance_uuids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real value on top: batch size limit, shared pagination, per-item error reporting, the price=null caveat, and an explicit statement that credentials are never returned. The price-null and credential notes are non-obvious behaviors not derivable from the annotations.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded, and the four short clauses (scope, return shape, price caveat, security note) are each informative and free of filler. Dense but well-structured.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it still flags the notable ones (instances, errors, price=null) plus a security exclusion. For a one-parameter read tool this is essentially complete; only the sibling-routing hint is absent.
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?
The single parameter is named only in the schema (0% description coverage), and the description's '1–100 个实例 UUID' restates the minItems/maxItems constraints already present in the schema. It does confirm these are UUIDs, adding slight meaning, but does not go 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 (批量查询/batch query) plus resource (实例 UUID) and the fields returned (状态和硬件规格), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling instance_status, so the batch-vs-single distinction must be inferred from '1–100 个'.
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 '批量查询 1–100 个实例 UUID' framing implies the batch use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative instance_status for single lookups. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.