Retrieve VCF Automation provider tokens with pagination, filtering, and sorting so you can inspect and manage token records.
Retrieve tokens GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/tokens
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | Page to fetch, zero offset. | |
| filter | No | Filter for a query. FIQL format. | |
| sortAsc | No | Field to use for ascending sort | |
| pageSize | Yes | Results per page to fetch. | |
| sortDesc | No | Field to use for descending sort |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP path, which is already present in the annotation title, and does not explain pagination, filtering, sorting, or return behavior.
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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted prose. However, the endpoint path largely duplicates the annotation title, so it is efficient but not maximally informative.
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?
The tool has no output schema and the description does not describe the returned token list, pagination behavior, or filtering format. Because the input schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety, this is minimally adequate but still missing useful context.
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 five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about pagination, FIQL filtering, or sorting semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve tokens', with the GET endpoint path. It does not explicitly distinguish this plural-list tool from the sibling singular `provider_get_token`, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this list endpoint versus `provider_get_token`, `provider_update_token`, or `provider_delete_token`. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.