List available compute plans, GPU instances, CPU/RAM configurations, and pricing options for E2E Networks Cloud. Filter by category, location, or project to compare infrastructure choices.
List available compute plans, GPU instances, CPU/RAM configurations, and pricing options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category (e.g. "Linux", "GPU", "Windows"). | |
| 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: it never states the call is read-only, whether results are paginated or complete, whether pricing is region-dependent, or what auth/credentials are required (despite e2e_configure_credentials existing as a sibling). It only adds that pricing data is included.
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 the verb first and the resource scope immediately after; every clause (GPU instances, CPU/RAM, pricing) adds concrete information about what is returned. No filler.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally cover return shape and scoping behavior. It adequately conveys what the tool lists and needs no required parameters, but leaves the agent guessing about pagination, regional pricing differences, and the relationship to sibling plan/catalog tools.
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 all three parameters (category, location, project_id) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no filter semantics beyond the schema — it never mentions that category, location, or project_id narrow the listing.
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 ("List") and resource ("compute plans"), then enumerates what is covered: GPU instances, CPU/RAM configurations, pricing. The word "compute" implicitly separates it from the sibling e2e_list_database_plans, but the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is only partial.
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 the closely related e2e_list_database_plans or e2e_list_nodes alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the plan-catalog lookup versus a resource inventory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.