hcloud_list_cfw_firewallsLists Cloud Firewall (CFW) firewalls in a specified region, with optional limit and offset for pagination. Use it to inspect available CFW firewalls before managing or auditing network security.
List CFW (Cloud Firewall) firewalls
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| offset | No | Page offset | |
| region | Yes | Region |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — no mention of pagination behavior despite limit/offset params, no scope or filtering limits, no note on what is returned.
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 zero wasted words and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate precision.
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 simple list tool the definition is thin: no output schema exists, so the description should at least hint at what is returned or that results are paginated, and it never states that region is mandatory scoping. The annotations cover safety but not result shape.
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%, so limit, offset and the required region are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case for high coverage.
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 verb and resource ('List CFW firewalls') and expands the CFW acronym, which is mildly useful. But it essentially restates the tool name and does not distinguish it from the closely related CFW siblings (hcloud_list_cfw_acl_rules, hcloud_list_cfw_service_rules) beyond the noun.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives or related tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this enumerates top-level firewall instances rather than ACL or service rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.