List all reserved static public IP addresses in a project, filtered by location, to audit allocations and manage network access.
List all reserved (static public) IP addresses 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. It implies project scoping ('in your project') but says nothing about pagination, result limits, whether optional project_id/location actually filter the output, or permissions required. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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, exactly the right size. It is efficient but very sparse, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It omits the relationship to the reserved-IP mutation sibling and any pagination/return expectations, which an agent would want.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only that results are project-scoped, without clarifying how the optional location parameter narrows results.
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?
Clear verb+resource ('List all reserved (static public) IP addresses') with a helpful parenthetical disambiguating what 'reserved' means. It does not differentiate itself from sibling e2e_action_reserved_ip, which operates on the same resource class, so it falls short of a 5.
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 versus e2e_action_reserved_ip or e2e_raw_request, and no mention of prerequisites or scope of the listing. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.