ws_vps_snapshot_listList VPS snapshots with names and creation times by specifying a VPS ID. Review available backup points to plan restores.
List the snapshots taken of a VPS, with their names and creation times.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vpsId | Yes | VPS id or name, as returned by ws_vps_list. | |
| userId | No | Account id, or the literal "self" for the authenticated account. Defaults to "self". | self |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by mentioning the returned fields (names and creation times), which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, ordering, or error handling. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, and the description adds a modest amount of context 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and key output details. There is zero redundancy or wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it lists, for which VPS, and what fields it returns. However, it omits details like whether the list is paginated, ordered, or if it returns an array or object. Given the tool's simplicity and the thorough schema, these gaps are minor, but the description could be slightly more explicit about the response shape.
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%, and the schema itself thoroughly documents both parameters (vpsId with source reference, userId with default and meaning). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'snapshots taken of a VPS', and specifies the output fields (names and creation times). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ws_vps_list (lists VPSs) and ws_vps_get (gets VPS details) by focusing on snapshots specifically.
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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention that it operates on a specific VPS identified by vpsId, nor that it is read-only. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.