list_locationsRetrieve all accessible exit locations (country, city, location ID) to verify valid targets before moving or rotating devices. Read-only.
List the exit locations (country, city and location ID) that devices can be moved to. Use it before move_device or start_rotation when you're unsure what's available. Every plan can use every location. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' aligns without adding much there. However, it adds useful context beyond annotations: the exact contents of the list (country, city, location ID) and the fact that all plans can use all locations – a domain-level behavioral detail not captured in structured fields.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the usage guidance and read-only note. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of the schema.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the list contains, when to call it, and that it's safe. No output schema exists, but the description names the returned fields explicitly, so 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. No parameter explanation is needed; the description correctly focuses on the output and usage. Baseline of 4 applies for no-param tools, and the description adds no redundant param noise.
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?
States a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('exit locations'), and the exact fields returned (country, city, location ID). Also explicitly ties its purpose to the siblings move_device and start_rotation, making it easy to distinguish from other listing tools like list_devices.
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?
Explicitly instructs when to use it ('before move_device or start_rotation when you're unsure what's available') and adds a universal applicability note ('Every plan can use every location'). This gives clear direction and removes ambiguity about prerequisites or validity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.