hcloud_list_metricsLists CES Cloud Eye metrics for a specified region, optionally filtered by metric namespace and result limit, to support cloud resource monitoring and analysis.
List CES (Cloud Eye) metrics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| region | Yes | Region | |
| namespace | No | Metric namespace (e.g. SYS.ECS) |
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 and idempotency profile is covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context of its own, such as whether the listing is scoped to a namespace or how large result sets are handled, but it also does not contradict anything.
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 definition is a single short sentence with zero filler, so it is maximally front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient but tips into under-specification for a tool with three parameters and several nearby siblings.
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 list tool sitting next to show_metric_data and alarm tools, the description omits what a returned metric is, how namespace scoping works, and when to prefer it over siblings. With no output schema to fall back on, the description leaves meaningful gaps that the schema alone cannot fill.
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 three parameters (limit, region, namespace) are already documented, including a namespace example. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas rather than exceeding it.
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?
"List CES (Cloud Eye) metrics" gives a verb and a resource and expands the CES acronym, so the domain is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as hcloud_show_metric_data or hcloud_list_alarms, so an agent cannot tell from the description which of them retrieves metric definitions versus metric data points.
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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite hcloud_show_metric_data being an obvious adjacent choice. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the required region parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.