hcloud_list_sms_serversLists Huawei Cloud Server Migration Service (SMS) source servers by region and optional name, state, limit, and offset filters for migration inventory checks.
List SMS (Server Migration Service) source servers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter by server name | |
| limit | No | Max number of results | |
| state | No | Filter by server state | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| region | Yes | Region |
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 by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that, such as whether results are paginated, whether region scoping is mandatory, or whether all servers are returned unfiltered.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple list operation, though the brevity leaves no room for disambiguation.
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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, given the large family of similarly named list tools in this server, it should do more to distinguish scope and return behavior.
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%, with every parameter (name, limit, state, offset, region) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics such as accepted state values or pagination conventions, so the baseline 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?
The description gives a specific verb (List) and resource (SMS source servers), and even expands the SMS acronym to Server Migration Service. It clearly identifies this as an enumeration tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hcloud_show_sms_server or hcloud_list_sms_tasks.
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 versus hcloud_show_sms_server (singular detail) or the adjacent SMS listing tools such as hcloud_list_sms_tasks and hcloud_list_sms_migration_projects. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.