hcloud_list_er_attachmentsLists attachments for a specific Huawei Cloud Enterprise Router (ER) using its region and router ID, with optional limit and offset pagination.
List attachments for a specific ER (Enterprise Router) router
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| offset | No | Page offset | |
| region | Yes | Region | |
| router_id | Yes | ER router ID |
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 safety is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that — nothing about pagination semantics (limit/offset defaults or maximums), result ordering, or what happens with an invalid router_id in an open-world API.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true economy, since essentials like pagination behavior are omitted entirely.
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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and rich annotations, the description is only just adequate. It leaves an agent to guess at paging behavior and the shape of returned attachments, which matters for a list endpoint.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters, meeting the baseline. The description contributes no extra meaning (e.g., valid region values or whether offset requires limit), so it neither helps nor hurts.
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 ('List') and resource ('attachments') scoped to an ER (Enterprise Router) router, which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as hcloud_list_er_routers or hcloud_list_er_route_tables, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.
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?
'for a specific ER router' implies the precondition that a router_id must already be known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no note on how this relates to listing routers or route tables first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.