hcloud_list_er_route_tablesLists route tables for a specific Enterprise Router using region and router ID, with limit and offset options for pagination.
List route tables 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=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful constraint that results are scoped to one router, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape beyond what the limit/offset params imply.
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 filler, giving the action and the scope immediately. It is efficient, though it leaves no room for the routing guidance a one-line description would have benefited from.
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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, most of what an agent needs is present, and the absence of an output schema is not disqualifying. The only real gap is disambiguation from the generic hcloud_list_route_tables sibling.
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 all four parameters (limit, offset, region, router_id) are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that router_id targets an Enterprise Router but adds no format, syntax, or default-value detail beyond the schema.
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 supplies a specific verb and resource ('List route tables') and scopes it to a particular ER (Enterprise Router) router, expanding the ER abbreviation so the agent knows the domain. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes this from the sibling hcloud_list_route_tables, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'for a specific ER router' signals that router_id and region are prerequisites, which matches the required fields. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no statement of when not to use it, and no pointer to hcloud_list_route_tables for the non-ER case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.