Retrieves paginated Horizon RDS farm details—ID, name, type, enabled status, and server count—to inspect and manage VDI environments.
[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.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds that results are paginated and identifies the returned fields. It does not mention permission requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool those are minor gaps.
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?
One sentence plus the '[READ]' tag and a final 'Paginated.' clause; it is front-loaded with the action and resource and wastes no words.
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 fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing return-field enumeration and pagination note. No output schema exists, so that returned-field list is the right level of detail.
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 limit, offset, and target are fully documented in the schema. The description only implies pagination via the word 'Paginated'; it adds no syntax or constraints 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 and resource ('List Horizon RDS farms') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from the VDI-pool and image-listing siblings even without a title. No ambiguity about what is listed.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It never distinguishes listing RDS farms from the sibling tools that list desktop pools, app pools, images, or sessions, so the agent must infer the scope from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.