hcloud_list_rds_flavorsLists available RDS instance flavors and specifications by region and DB engine, with optional version filtering, to help choose a compatible database instance size.
List RDS instance flavor/spec options
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | Region | |
| version_name | No | Database version filter | |
| database_name | Yes | DB engine: MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLServer, MariaDB |
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 without the description. The description adds nothing further: no note that results depend on region plus engine plus optional version, no mention of result size or pagination, and no statement that an invalid region/engine combination yields an empty list rather than an error.
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 five-word sentence with zero filler, and the resource is front-loaded immediately after the verb. Its brevity borders on under-specification, but nothing written is wasted.
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 three fully documented parameters, the essentials are covered by schema and annotations. However, nothing explains the filter model (region and engine required, version optional) or what the returned flavor objects are used for, which matters because this tool's output feeds into instance creation.
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 region, database_name and version_name are already documented, and the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no semantics beyond the schema — for example, that version_name is optional and defaults to all versions — so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 RDS instance flavor/spec options" states a specific verb (list) and resource (RDS flavors), and the word "spec" clarifies that these are sizing options rather than instances. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as hcloud_list_rds_storage_types or hcloud_list_dcs_flavors, which an agent must still infer.
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 call this versus the other RDS list tools (datastores, storage types, backups) or versus flavors from other services. The typical usage pattern — resolving a flavor_id before creating an instance — is never stated, so the agent must infer it from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.