retrieveAssignmentGet specific assignment for the tag - Get attributes for a specific tag assignment in your account. For this the resource type and resource id is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tagId | Yes | ||
| resourceId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| resourceType | Yes | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is clear. The description adds minimal context like 'in your account' and the requirement for resource type/id, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. No contradiction with annotations.
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 short but contains redundancy: the first phrase 'Get specific assignment for the tag' restates the title, followed by a dash and a near-identical restatement. It could be condensed to a single clear sentence without losing meaning.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., the assignment attributes structure), but it only vaguely says 'Get attributes'. It also does not cover error cases, pagination, or the role of all parameters. The tool has 5 parameters and zero schema descriptions, so the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 0%, and the description only states that resource type and resource id are required. It does not explain the meaning of tagId, x-request-id, or x-trace-id, nor does it clarify what values resourceType should take. The description provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves attributes for a specific tag assignment, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource type and resource id. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like retrieveAssignmentList and mutation tools like createAssignment/deleteAssignment.
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 use when needing a single assignment's attributes, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as retrieveAssignmentList for bulk retrieval. It only notes that resource type and resource id are required, which is more of a prerequisite than a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.