list_resourcesList Azure resources in a subscription or resource group to inventory and manage your cloud assets.
List resources in a subscription, or within a specific resource group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscription | No | Subscription id (defaults to AZURE_SUBSCRIPTION_ID) | |
| resourceGroup | No | Limit to this resource group |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the scoping behavior (subscription-wide or resource-group-limited), which is useful context but duplicated by the parameter schema.
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. The scope constraint is stated immediately and nothing else is needed.
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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies adequate scope context. It omits return-shape details, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward enough that this is acceptable.
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%, documenting both optional parameters including the default subscription behavior. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (resources) with scope (subscription or resource group). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like list_resource_groups and get_resource, but never names or explicitly contrasts them.
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 or alternatives are given. The agent is not told when to prefer this over get_resource or list_resource_groups, nor any prerequisites for either scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.