Google Compute Engine

get_reservation_basic_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Compute Engine reservation basic info including name, ID, creation timestamp, zone, status, specific reservation required, commitment, and linked commitments. Requires project, zone, and reservation name as input.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The unique identifier for the reservation.
`name`	No	Name of the reservation.
`zone`	No	The zone of the reservation.
`status`	No	The status of the reservation.
`commitment`	No	The commitment this reservation is tied to.
`createTime`	No	Creation timestamp of the reservation.
`linkedCommitments`	No	The commitments linked to this reservation.
`specificReservationRequired`	No	Indicates whether the reservation can be consumed by VMs with affinity for "any" reservation. If the field is set, then only VMs that target the reservation by name can consume from this reservation.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact set of returned fields, which is beyond what the input schema shows. No contradiction exists.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately list required inputs and returned fields. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully captures the tool's purpose, required inputs, and the content of the response. No additional behavioral details are necessary.

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%, and the description simply lists the required parameters (project, zone, name) without adding formats, constraints, or other semantic details that the schema does not already provide. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get Compute Engine reservation basic info' and enumerates the specific fields returned (name, ID, creation timestamp, zone, status, specific reservation required, commitment, and linked commitments). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reservation_details.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context by stating that it returns basic reservation info and requires project, zone, and name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide when-to-use versus what-not-to-use guidance relative to get_reservation_details.

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?