List all VPC gateways in a specified Yandex Cloud folder by providing the folder ID to retrieve gateway information.
List all gateways in specified folder
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_vpc_gateways"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing action and does not explain what happens when folder_id is omitted (despite being optional with default null), nor does it mention pagination, filtering, or scope defaults. The verb 'list' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, it lacks useful context, so it is efficient but not maximally helpful. This aligns with other one-sentence tool descriptions that earn a 4.
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 is simple, but the description is incomplete for an unannotated tool. The optional folder_id with default null creates ambiguity about scope when not specified, and there is no mention of return values or list behavior. The absence of output schema and annotations increases the need for a more complete description.
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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only says 'specified folder', echoing the parameter name, but does not clarify that folder_id is optional, what null means, or the expected format. This is insufficient for a parameter with a default value.
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 action ('List'), the resource ('gateways'), and scope ('in specified folder'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_vpc_networks and get_gateway_configuration. The only minor ambiguity is 'specified folder' versus the optional folder_id parameter, but this does not obscure the core purpose.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of get_gateway_configuration for details, no exclusions, and no situational context. This is a bare statement of function with no selection help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.