get_serverFetch a server's current status, plan, expiry, and bandwidth usage. (Network details like the IPv4/SSH target are returned only to the provisioner via the API, not on this public endpoint.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Server id, e.g. srv_… |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses an important behavioral limitation: network details like IPv4/SSH target are not returned on this public endpoint. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it gives meaningful context about what the tool returns and what it omits.
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 a single concise sentence with a parenthetical clarification. It front-loads the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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?
For a simple one-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (status, plan, expiry, bandwidth) and a key caveat (network details omitted). It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the sibling list clarifies scope.
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?
The schema description covers the only parameter ('id') with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 fetches a server's current status, plan, expiry, and bandwidth usage, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_servers (which lists servers) by focusing on a single server's details via the 'id' parameter.
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 usage (when you need status for a specific server) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria. It does not mention list_servers for retrieving IDs or say when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the name and siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list_plans provides plan catalogs, get_payment_options details payment methods, list_servers enumerates provisioned servers, and get_server fetches a single server's status. No two tools overlap in function.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'list' for collection operations (list_plans, list_servers) and 'get' for single-item operations (get_payment_options, get_server). The style is uniform and predictable.
The server has 4 tools, perfectly scoped for its stated purpose of providing plan/payment info and server status without provisioning. It's neither too sparse nor overloaded.
The informational workflow is covered: list plans, get payment options, list servers, and get server details. The lack of provisioning tools is intentional per the description, so no major gaps exist, though a few minor niceties like fetching a single plan would be possible additions.