Verda Cloud MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format, which is helpful, but lacks critical details like whether this lists all volumes or requires pagination, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and additional return details in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the purpose and return format, but with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it misses usage context and behavioral details that would help an agent operate effectively in this environment.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics by detailing the return fields (ID, name, size, attachment status), which adds value beyond the structured data. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description compensates for the lack of parameter complexity.

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 ('your block storage volumes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_instances' or 'list_images' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_volume', 'attach_volume', and 'detach_volume', there's no indication of prerequisites, sequencing, or contextual triggers for listing volumes versus performing other volume-related operations.

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