hcloud_list_user_policiesList policies attached to a specific IAM user by user ID. Use it to inspect permissions and audit access assigned to Huawei Cloud users.
List policies attached to an IAM user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | User 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 restating the operation: no note on pagination, response shape, or what happens when the user has no policies or the ID is invalid.
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 filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true crispness.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It still leaves the return shape (policy names vs. IDs, pagination) unstated, which is the main remaining gap.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'IAM user' loosely reinforces that user_id is an IAM user identifier, but adds no format, source, or discovery guidance beyond the schema's 'User ID'.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and a scoped resource (policies attached to an IAM user), which distinguishes it from the generic hcloud_list_policies sibling. The scope qualifier 'attached to an IAM user' does the differentiating work without naming the sibling explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as hcloud_list_policies or hcloud_show_user. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the per-user variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.