Retrieve OCI compute shapes with OCPU and memory pricing, filter by type, family, or max OCPU price.
List all OCI compute shapes (VMs, bare metal, GPU) with OCPU and memory pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by type (e.g., flexible-vm, bare-metal, gpu) | |
| family | No | Filter by shape family (e.g., E4, E5, A1, GPU) | |
| maxOcpuPrice | No | Maximum OCPU price per hour |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it 'list all' with pricing, but does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or result size. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, well-structured sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no extraneous information.
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 description explains the tool lists shapes with OCPU and memory pricing, which is adequate for a simple list/filter tool. However, without an output schema, more detail on the return structure (e.g., fields, pagination) would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely states the output includes pricing. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'OCI compute shapes', and specifies scope 'all' with categories (VMs, bare metal, GPU) and included info (OCPU and memory pricing). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_services or list_regions.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_compute_shapes or get_compute_shape_details. The description implies the tool lists all shapes with pricing, but does not clarify when a more specific or comparative tool would be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.