Get a full overview of every VPS instance on your Iotamine account, showing hostname, status, specs, IP addresses, OS, node location, and machine status.
List every VPS instance on this Iotamine account — hostname, status, specs (cores/ram/disk/traffic), IP addresses, OS, node location, and machine_status (Running/Stopped/Building/...) for each one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by specifying exactly what fields are returned, which helps the agent understand the output. 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('List every VPS instance') and immediately details the returned fields. No wasted words.
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 no-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it states the scope (all VPS instances), the exact fields returned, and even notes the possible machine_status values. With no output schema, it provides sufficient information for an agent to call it correctly and understand the result.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. It correctly adds no param info since none exist.
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 tool lists every VPS instance on the account, enumerating specific fields (hostname, status, specs, IPs, OS, node, machine_status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vps (single VPS) and list_vps_backups (backups).
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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: to retrieve all VPS instances. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions like 'use get_vps for a single VPS', but the sibling names make this obvious. The context is clear, though not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.