Google Compute Engine

get_commitment_basic_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get basic information about a Compute Engine Commitment, including its name, ID, status, plan, type, resources, and creation, start and end timestamps. Requires project, region, and commitment name as input.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Required. Identifier. Name of the commitment to return.
`region`	Yes	Required. The region of the commitment.
`project`	Yes	Required. Project ID for this request.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The unique identifier for the commitment.
`name`	No	Name of the commitment.
`plan`	No	The plan of the commitment.
`type`	No	The type of the commitment.
`status`	No	The status of the commitment.
`endTime`	No	End timestamp of the commitment.
`resources`	No	A list of all the hardware resources of the commitment.
`startTime`	No	Start timestamp of the commitment.
`createTime`	No	Creation timestamp of the commitment.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the exact fields returned, but does not disclose further behavioral aspects like auth requirements or error conditions. Given annotation coverage, the description contributes appropriately but not extensively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively short and front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, the second sentence ('Requires project, region, and commitment name as input.') is redundant with the schema. Removing it would improve conciseness without losing any unique information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description covers the resource, specific fields, and required inputs. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema. Minor gaps exist, but overall sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description only restates the required parameters ('Requires project, region, and commitment name as input.') without adding new semantic details. Thus, it does not extend beyond the schema information, earning a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get basic information about a Compute Engine Commitment' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the fields returned (name, ID, status, plan, type, resources, timestamps), differentiating it from siblings like list_commitments (which lists all commitments) and other get_*_basic_info tools (different resource types).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by specifying the resource and data returned, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_commitments or get_reservation_basic_info. No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Google Compute Engine tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource-action combination. For resources with both basic and detailed getters (reservations, templates), the suffixes clearly differentiate them, and list vs get distinctions are unambiguous. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., create_instance, list_disks, get_zone_operation). Getters consistently use descriptive suffixes like basic_info, details, or properties. No mixed naming conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count4/5

29 tools is slightly above the ideal range but justified given the breadth of Google Compute Engine resources covered (instances, disks, templates, reservations, commitments, MIGs, snapshots, images, machine types, accelerator types). Each tool serves a specific purpose and contributes to the overall scope.

Completeness2/5

The toolset is heavily read-oriented. While instances have full lifecycle coverage (create, delete, start, stop, reset, set machine type), most other resources lack write operations: disks, templates, reservations, commitments, snapshots, and MIGs only have get/list tools. This creates dead ends for agents needing to create or modify these resources, which is a significant gap for a GCE management server.

Resources

Need Help?