hcloud_list_swr_repositoriesList SWR repositories in a chosen region and filter by namespace, using limit and offset for pagination.
List SWR repositories with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of results | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| region | Yes | Region | |
| namespace | No | Filter by namespace |
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 pagination behavior (despite limit/offset params), no indication of result volume, ordering, or what happens when filters match nothing.
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 clause with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.
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 four-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the bare minimum. It omits the one thing an agent cannot get from structured fields: whether results are paginated and how to page through them.
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 four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The phrase "optional filters" loosely refers to namespace but adds no meaning beyond what the schema states, 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 and resource ("List SWR repositories"), which is clearly distinct from the neighboring namespace, tag, and domain SWR tools. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, and the acronym SWR is never expanded, but an agent can still identify the operation.
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?
"With optional filters" hints that filtering is possible but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus hcloud_list_swr_namespaces or hcloud_list_swr_tags, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The agent must infer everything about selection 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.