ws_vps_listList VPS instances on your account with pagination options for page, page size, and user ID.
List the VPS instances 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, sorting, or whether it returns only VPS metadata or includes details. It is consistent with annotations but adds minimal 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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is meaningful, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing operation.
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 straightforward list tool with all parameters documented and a safe read annotation, the description is adequate. It could mention that results are paginated (given the page and pagesize parameters) or that it returns a list of VPS summaries, but these are minor omissions. The lack of an output schema means the return format is not specified, yet the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.
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 documents all three parameters (page, userId, pagesize) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no additional meaning. Since the schema already provides sufficient documentation, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the resource 'VPS instances', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ws_vps_get, ws_vps_stats, or ws_vps_snapshot_list, so while the action is clear, the scope of what 'list' returns (e.g., summaries vs. full details) is not distinguished.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that ws_vps_get is for a single instance or that ws_vps_stats provides performance data, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the generic list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.