hcloud_list_cbr_backupsList Huawei Cloud CBR backups by region and filter by resource ID or checkpoint ID to review available backups; supports pagination via limit and offset.
List CBR (Cloud Backup and Recovery) backups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of results | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| region | Yes | Region | |
| resource_id | No | Filter by resource ID | |
| checkpoint_id | No | Filter by checkpoint ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the title: it does not mention pagination behavior, the required region, filtering options, or what the listing returns.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. However, it is extremely sparse and provides no structural cues about required region, filtering, or pagination behavior.
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?
For a five-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. The schema covers parameter semantics and annotations cover safety, but the description still omits the required region, pagination, and how CBR backups relate to sibling CBR vaults and policies.
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 all five parameters (including the required region) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CBR (Cloud Backup and Recovery) backups'), and expands the acronym clearly. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as hcloud_list_cbr_vaults, hcloud_list_cbr_policies, or hcloud_list_rds_backups, so sibling differentiation is absent.
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 alternative tool named, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The description only says what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when to choose it over related CBR or backup list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.