Fetch paginated Horizon RDS farm details including ID, name, type, enabled status, and RDS server count to monitor and manage farm inventory.
[READ] List Horizon RDS farms: id, name, type, enabled, RDS server count. Paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (default 50). | |
| offset | No | Page offset. | |
| target | No | Horizon target from config.yaml; omit to use the default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Page size (default 50)."Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionAdded value: +"Page offset."Input schema / properties / target / descriptionAdded value: +"Horizon target from config.yaml; omit to use the default."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by explicitly marking the operation as '[READ]' and revealing that results are paginated.
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 communicates the operation kind, resource, returned fields, and pagination behavior with zero filler. Every element earns its place.
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 paginated list operation, the description names the resource, the returned fields, and the pagination behavior. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. No output schema exists, but the stated field list is enough for the agent to interpret results.
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 parameters limit, offset, and target are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a general 'Paginated' signal and does not need to repeat parameter details; baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List Horizon RDS farms' with exact returned fields (id, name, type, enabled, RDS server count). This clearly scopes the operation and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like image_list, pool_list, and machine_list.
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 description implies this tool is for listing farms, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Context is clear enough for a simple resource-list operation, but exclusionary guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.