Google Compute Engine

get_zone_operation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get details of a zone operation, including its id, name, status, creation timestamp, error, warning, HTTP error message and HTTP error status code. Requires project, zone, and operation name as input.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The unique identifier for the operation.
`name`	No	Name of the operation.
`error`	No	Errors encountered during the operation execution.
`status`	No	The status of the operation.
`warnings`	No	Warnings encountered during the operation execution.
`createTime`	No	Creation timestamp of the operation.
`httpErrorMessage`	No	If the operation fails, this field contains the HTTP error message that corresponds to the HTTP error code generated for the audit log.
`httpErrorStatusCode`	No	If the operation fails, this field contains the HTTP error status code that corresponds to the HTTP error message generated for the audit log.

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, establishing the safety profile. The description adds transparency by listing exactly what data will be returned (id, name, status, errors) and the required input parameters. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage, though it does not mention permissions or rate limits.

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 well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the action and return values, and the second lists input requirements. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 3-parameter get operation with full schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It accurately conveys what the tool does, what it returns, and what it requires, without needing additional behavioral caveats.

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) having a clear description in the input schema. The description merely reiterates that these inputs are required without adding new semantic detail. The schema carries the full burden, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Get details of a zone operation' and enumerates the specific fields returned (id, name, status, creation timestamp, error, etc.). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_instances or get_instance_basic_info.

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 for retrieving a single zone operation by explicitly requiring project, zone, and operation name. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., listing operations) or mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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?