List all managed Application and Network Load Balancers in a project by region to review or manage cloud networking resources.
List all managed Load Balancers (Application Load Balancers and Network Load Balancers) in your project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | No | Location/region code. | |
| project_id | No | Project ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'list' implies a read, but there is no mention of pagination, result limits, auth/permission requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical earns its place by clarifying which LB types are returned. It stops just short of a 5 because it omits any scoping or filter qualifiers that would help an agent act.
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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what happens when the optional location/project_id are omitted (all projects? default region?), which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.
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?
Both parameters have 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'location' and 'project_id'. The description adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema supplies, making the baseline 3 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?
Specific verb (list) plus resource (managed Load Balancers), and the parenthetical names the concrete subtypes (Application/Network) so an agent knows what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but no sibling tool covers load balancers, so the risk of misrouting is low.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The phrase 'in your project' weakly implies scoping, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus e.g. e2e_list_vpcs or e2e_raw_request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.