list_zone_rulesetsRetrieve all rulesets configured for a Cloudflare zone. Read-only operation with pagination and optional zone ID.
Fetches all rulesets at the zone level. Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| account | No | Exact private profile label. Account/zone defaults route inputs; token permissions remain provider controlled. | |
| zone_id | No | ||
| per_page | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's sole behavioral claim ('Read operation') is a restatement rather than added context. Nothing is said about pagination behavior, result size, or auth requirements despite 4 parameters covering cursor/per_page/account.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence ('Read operation.') duplicates the annotation block and earns no place. One wasted sentence out of two is a real efficiency cost.
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 paginated list tool with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the definition omits pagination semantics, default page size, and what a 'ruleset' contains. An agent can form the call but not predict its behavior or navigate results.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 25% and the description adds zero parameter meaning: it never explains cursor, per_page limits/defaults, or how the 'account' label routes the request. With a low-coverage schema, the description was expected to compensate and does not.
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 and resource with scope: 'Fetches all rulesets at the zone level.' Clear enough to separate it from get_zone_ruleset (single) and create/update/delete_zone_ruleset (mutations). It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_zone_ruleset or list_page_rules. The only usage signal is 'Read operation,' which is already conveyed by annotations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.