vibecloud_list_servicesCompatibility alias: lists cloud services; use cloud_services_list for new integrations. sandbox=true includes zero-cost trial services, no wallet/header needed.
Alias tương thích; dùng cloud_services_list cho tích hợp mới. sandbox=true gộp service thử 0đ, không cần header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sandbox | No | sandbox=true: thử 0đ, không cần ví |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds behavioral context beyond them: sandbox=true includes 0đ trial services and no header is required, which tells the agent about auth behavior and result scoping.
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?
One front-loaded sentence states the alias relationship, the preferred alternative, and the sandbox behavior with no filler. It is tightly sized for a single-parameter alias tool.
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 1-param read-only alias with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: it is an alias, use the canonical tool instead, and what sandbox does. Nothing critical 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single sandbox parameter is fully described in the schema itself. The description's 'sandbox=true gộp service thử 0đ' largely restates the schema text, adding little new meaning, 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?
The description and title explicitly frame this as a compatibility alias for cloud_services_list, which lets an agent place it relative to siblings without opening either schema. However it never directly states the underlying action (listing services); the reader infers it from the alias target.
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?
It gives explicit routing guidance: 'dùng cloud_services_list cho tích hợp mới' names the alternative and the condition (new integrations) that selects it. It stops short of stating when this alias should still be used, leaving the legacy-only case implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.