hcloud_list_rds_backupsList RDS backups for a specified Huawei Cloud instance and region, with an optional limit to control results. Use it to inspect available backups before restore or audit tasks.
List RDS backups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| region | Yes | Region | |
| instance_id | Yes | RDS instance ID (required) |
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. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating 'List' and does not mention pagination, filtering, or what backup information 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?
The description is a single front-loaded phrase with no filler or unnecessary wording. It is perhaps too terse for the tool's parameterization, but it is structurally clean and wastes no words.
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 and useful annotations, this is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify that backups are scoped by region and instance, nor does it describe pagination or result shape, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.
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 are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about limit behavior or how region and instance_id constrain the result, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb and resource: 'List RDS backups'. It is specific enough to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from other backup-listing siblings such as hcloud_list_cbr_backups or clarify that backups are scoped to an RDS instance.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites apply, or how it relates to alternatives. The required instance_id and region parameters imply per-instance usage, but the description does not state that context or route the agent to related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.