List Shared File System (SFS) instances by location and project to inspect and manage elastic file storage.
List all SFS (Shared File System / Elastic File Storage) instances.
| 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. 'List' implies a read-only operation but the description does not confirm this, nor does it describe pagination, filtering semantics (does location/project_id filter the list or scope it?), or the response shape.
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 that is efficient and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized, though a bit sparse for a tool with this many siblings.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and usage guidance, the description is too thin for a list tool with 2 optional parameters. It lacks any indication of what is returned, whether results are paginated, or how filtering works.
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 (location, project_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SFS instances') and clarifies the acronym, which helps disambiguate from other list_ tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling list tools beyond the resource name, 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 tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. With dozens of sibling list_ tools, an agent receives no routing help whatsoever.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.