Verda Cloud MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format and fields (ID, hostname, status, type, IP), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies safety).

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 with zero waste. First sentence states purpose clearly, second describes return format. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from explicitly stating it's a read-only operation or mentioning any limitations.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all your Verda Cloud instances') with specific scope ('with their status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_instance_status' (single instance) and 'list_images' (different resource).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'all your instances' and 'with their status', suggesting this is for inventory overview rather than detailed status checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'check_instance_status' for single instances or 'list_volumes' for different resources.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.