telgea_list_data_poolsLists shared data pools with region, total, consumed and remaining GB, expiry, and whether restrictions are active.
Shared data pools: region, total/consumed/remaining GB, expiry, whether restrictions are active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the response surfaces (region, GB totals/consumed/remaining, expiry, active restrictions), but it says nothing about scope (all pools across teams or just the caller's) or whether results are paginated.
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 compact clause with zero filler, front-loading the resource and its field set. It is slightly under-specified rather than over-long, but no sentence is wasteful.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values and does so reasonably. However, it omits the listing scope and any result-set behavior, leaving gaps an agent would want filled for a read-only enumeration tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the empty schema is self-explanatory.
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 names the resource (shared data pools) and enumerates the attributes exposed, but it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb and does not distinguish this from the sibling telgea_list_data_pool_members, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious sibling telgea_list_data_pool_members. 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.