List all backups in your Vultr account with ID, creation date, description, size, and status. Use it to review available backups before restore or cleanup.
List all backups in your Vultr account.
Returns: Backups, each with id, date_created, description, size and status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the returned records, which helps, and 'List' implies a safe read, but it says nothing about pagination, result caps, or whether filtering is possible on an account-wide listing.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope statement comes first and the return summary second. The 'Returns' block mildly duplicates the output schema but is compact enough to justify itself.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It covers purpose and scope adequately for a simple list operation; only pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No parameter-related confusion is introduced.
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 clear verb+resource ('List all backups') plus scope ('in your Vultr account'), which partially separates it from backups of other resource types like db_list_backups. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling backup_get or backup_get_schedule, but the account-wide listing intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., backup_get for a single backup, backup_get_schedule for schedules), and no conditions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.