List all block storage volumes in an E2E Cloud project, including size, IOPS, attachment status, and filesystem details, to inspect and manage storage resources.
List all block storage volumes in your E2E Cloud project (size, IOPS, attached node status, filesystem).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_no | No | Page number for pagination. | |
| location | No | Location/region code. | |
| per_page | No | Number of items per page. | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page_no/per_page params, nor about auth/prerequisites. It adds some context (what comes back) but leaves key operational traits undocumented.
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 well-formed sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and resource and appending the useful return-field list compactly.
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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned. It could mention pagination defaults or scoping (location/project_id) to be fully complete, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.
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 all four parameters (page_no, per_page, location, project_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (block storage volumes) with explicit scope ('in your E2E Cloud project'), and even enumerates returned attributes (size, IOPS, attached node status, filesystem). This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like e2e_create_volume, e2e_attach_volume, and e2e_delete_volume.
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 'List all' phrasing implies a read/inventory use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of filtering, and no reference to alternatives. Usage is inferable but not stated, which is the definition of minimum-viable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.