ws_hosting_listList hosting services on your account or a specified user account, with pagination to manage large result sets.
List the hosting services on the account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number. | |
| userId | No | Account id, or the literal "self" for the authenticated account. Defaults to "self". | self |
| pagesize | No | Records per page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response format, or filtering options, which is acceptable given the annotations but offers no extra value beyond them.
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 a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and is perfectly concise for a simple list tool.
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 that the tool is a straightforward list operation with all parameters documented and annotations covering safety, the description is largely adequate. However, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., a paginated array of hosting services) or any edge cases, and since there is no output schema, this information is left to inference. This is a minor gap but not critical for a list tool.
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 100%, meaning all three parameters (page, userId, pagesize) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any further parameter-specific information, so it earns the baseline score of 3; it neither improves nor detracts from what the schema already provides.
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 'List the hosting services on the account' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('hosting services') with clear scope ('on the account'). It distinguishes from siblings like ws_hosting_get (single hosting) and ws_hosting_vhost_list (vhosts), so an agent can readily identify what this tool does.
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 its usage—when you need a list of hosting services—but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like ws_service_list or ws_vps_list, nor does it mention exclusions. The purpose is self-evident, but no guidance on selection among similar list tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.