VPS_getTemplatesV1List available operating system templates for VPS instances, helping you choose an OS before creating or recreating a virtual machine.
Retrieve available OS templates for virtual machines.
Use this endpoint to view operating system options before creating or recreating VPS instances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2v0.2.1v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds context about the use case (viewing OS options before VM creation), which is beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand the intent. It does not describe response format or potential pagination, but given the annotations and simple list nature, this is adequate.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Retrieve available OS templates') and then immediately provides usage context. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is fully complete. It states what is returned (available OS templates), when to use it (before creating/recreating VPS instances), and there is no output schema so the agent needs no further detail on return shape. Nothing essential is missing.
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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly makes no parameter references. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not detract from it.
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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve available OS templates') and the resource ('for virtual machines'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like VPS_getTemplateDetailsV1 by indicating it lists templates, and the phrase 'before creating or recreating VPS instances' clarifies its role in the provisioning workflow. This is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use this endpoint to view operating system options before creating or recreating VPS instances,' providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., VPS_getTemplateDetailsV1 for a specific template), so it lacks the full exclusion/alternative guidance that would merit a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.