List all Oracle Cloud Infrastructure storage options with pricing — block, object, file, and archive — and filter results by a single storage type when needed.
List all OCI storage options (block, object, file, archive) with pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by storage type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds that the output includes pricing, which is useful but does not elaborate on response format, rate limits, or other behavioral nuances. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal extra context.
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 that immediately conveys the action and scope. Every word is informative — no filler, no redundancy. Perfectly concise for the information it provides.
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 covers the core functionality: listing storage options with pricing. While no output schema exists, the description implies a list of options with prices, which is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool. It could optionally mention additional output fields (e.g., performance, durability) but is not incomplete.
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 input schema has 100% coverage: the single parameter 'type' has a clear description and enum values. The tool's description merely repeats the enum values (block, object, file, archive) without adding new semantics. 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 exact action: listing all OCI storage options, and enumerates the specific types (block, object, file, archive) plus indicates output includes pricing. This verb+resource+scope pattern distinguishes it from siblings that list compute shapes, databases, etc.
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 gives clear context for when to use: to list storage options with pricing. It does not explicitly exclude other use cases like cost calculation, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent away from siblings focused on compute, databases, or networking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.