list_servicesList all active VPS services with details like state, plan, IPs, and expiry, then follow pagination to retrieve every page. Requires services:read permission with an API key.
List all active VPS services with state, plan, IPs, and expiry Requires services:read when called with an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number; follow the response pagination until all pages are read. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are filtered to active services only, and an API-key call requires the services:read scope, which is an auth requirement the annotations do not express.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the returned fields efficiently. It loses a point because the auth clause runs into the prior clause without punctuation ('expiry Requires'), creating a slight readability stumble.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (state, plan, IPs, expiry), and it covers the auth scope and active-only filter. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, which documents it, so the definition is nearly complete for a simple one-parameter list tool.
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 the single 'page' parameter is already fully documented, including the instruction to follow pagination. The description adds nothing about pagination or the page parameter, so the baseline 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 VPS services) plus the scope (active only) and the fields returned (state, plan, IPs, expiry). The word 'all' implicitly contrasts with the singular get_service sibling, though it never names that alternative explicitly.
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 description scopes the call to 'active' services and states the required services:read scope with an API key, which functions as a precondition. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never points to get_service for a single service or to related list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.