Find Vultr subaccounts by partial name with case-insensitive matching and retrieve the list of matching subaccounts.
Find subaccounts by name (partial match).
Args: name: Name to search for (case-insensitive partial match)
Returns: List of matching subaccounts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: the search is case-insensitive, allows partial matches, and returns a list of results. This goes beyond a bare statement of purpose and helps set expectations for the operation.
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 exceptionally concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then lists the single argument with its semantics, and closes with the return type. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff.
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 one-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what to pass and what to expect. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the scope of the search (e.g., all subaccounts), but that is reasonably implied by the tool name and context.
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?
Despite the schema having 0% description coverage for its single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'name' parameter: it is the search term, matched case-insensitively and partially. This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Find subaccounts by name (partial match).' It clearly states the matching method (partial match) and distinguishes the tool from its sibling subaccount_find_by_email, which searches by a different attribute.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling subaccount_find_by_email exists, but the description does not mention it or provide any conditions for choosing one over the other. The user is left to infer that this tool is for name-based searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.