List all Virtual Private Clouds (VPCs) in an E2E Cloud project, with optional filters for region, project, and pagination. Use it to view available VPCs before managing networking resources.
List all Virtual Private Clouds (VPCs) in your E2E Cloud project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_no | No | Page number. | |
| location | No | Location/region code. | |
| per_page | No | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, what authentication is required, or what the return format looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the operation and resource, and is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema fully documents its parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description could do more to disclose that this is a safe read-only list, how pagination behaves, and what the response contains. It is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters (page_no, location, per_page, project_id) with individual descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Virtual Private Clouds (VPCs)') and scopes it to an E2E Cloud project. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this list operation from sibling tools such as e2e_create_vpc or e2e_delete_vpc.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when a list is appropriate, whether filtering is supported, or how it relates to sibling VPC operations. The usage is only implied by the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.