Google Compute Engine

get_disk_basic_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get basic information about a Compute Engine disk, including its name, ID, description, creation timestamp, size, type, status, last attach timestamp, and last detach timestamp. Requires project, zone, and disk name as input.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Required. Identifier. The disk name.
`zone`	Yes	Required. The zone of the disk.
`project`	Yes	Required. Project ID for this request.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The unique identifier for the disk.
`name`	No	Name of the disk.
`type`	No	URL of the disk type resource.
`sizeGb`	No	Size of the disk in GB.
`status`	No	The status of the disk.
`createTime`	No	Creation timestamp of the disk.
`description`	No	Description of the disk.
`lastAttachTimestamp`	No	Last attach timestamp of the disk.
`lastDetachTimestamp`	No	Last detach timestamp of the disk.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the exact fields returned (creation timestamp, last attach/detach timestamps), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the tool's output scope.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a list of returned fields and required inputs. Every sentence contributes value with no repetition or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a simple read-only tool with 3 required params and an output schema. The description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and what inputs are needed. No additional context is necessary for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (project, zone, name) already described. The description merely restates 'Requires project, zone, and disk name' without adding new semantic details like formats, constraints, or relationships, so it does not surpass the schema baseline.

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 the tool's function: 'Get basic information about a Compute Engine disk' with a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete fields returned (name, ID, description, timestamps, size, type, status), distinguishing it from siblings like get_disk_performance_config or list_disks.

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 stating required inputs (project, zone, disk name) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_disk_performance_config or list_disks. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, making usage context 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?