Retrieve all billing nodes from the Remnawave panel to review their status and configuration.
List all billing nodes
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "billing_nodes_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action and resource, with no mention of pagination, sorting, auth requirements, or return format. For a list operation, this is minimal and lacks disclosure of any side effects or constraints.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
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 description is adequate for a simple list operation, but it leaves ambiguity about what constitutes a 'billing node' versus a regular node, and it doesn't mention the response structure (e.g., whether it returns an array of objects or includes metadata). Given the lack of an output schema, more context would help the agent understand the result.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema is trivially covered at 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is unnecessary given the absence of parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document.
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 'List all billing nodes' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from generic 'nodes_list'. However, it doesn't clarify how billing nodes differ from regular nodes or from 'billing_providers_list', so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'nodes_list' or 'billing_providers_list'. The description provides no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.