hcloud_list_security_group_rulesLists Huawei Cloud security group rules by region, optionally filtered by security group ID, to inspect network access controls.
List security group rules
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| region | Yes | Region | |
| security_group_id | No | Filter by security group 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on whether region is mandatory scoping, how security_group_id filtering changes behavior, pagination via limit, or what an empty result means.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. There is nothing front-loaded beyond the operation name.
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 filtered list tool with a required region and an optional security_group_id filter, the description says nothing about scoping, filtering behavior, or result shape (no output schema exists). Only the annotations supply behavioral context, leaving the description substantially incomplete.
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, limit and security_group_id are each documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about these parameters, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.
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 security group rules" states a concrete verb and resource, so the basic operation is discernible. However, it adds nothing beyond the tool name/title and does not differentiate this from siblings like hcloud_list_security_groups or hcloud_show_security_group.
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 versus the related security group listing/show tools, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.