get_caas_podRetrieve details for a specific CaaS pod by zone, namespace, and name. Use it to inspect pod status and metadata in ArvanCloud container clusters.
[READ] OpenAPI: GET /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods/{name}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| zone | Yes | CaaS zone from OpenAPI servers, e.g. ir-tbz-sh1 (Shahriar) or ir-thr-ba1 (Bamdad) | |
| namespace | Yes | Kubernetes namespace / project name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's only contribution is the redundant [READ] tag — it adds no context about what is returned, whether the zone must be reachable, or any failure/auth behavior.
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?
It is a single line with no wasted words and the resource is front-loaded, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, so it cannot score higher.
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?
With no output schema and no explanatory prose, the description leaves the agent without any sense of what a pod retrieval returns or what 'CaaS pod' means in this API surface. For a three-required-parameter read tool this is substantially incomplete, even though the operation itself is simple.
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?
Schema description coverage is 67%: zone and namespace are documented in the schema but name is not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — it only echoes the path template, leaving the bare 'name' parameter unexplained.
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 line names a verb (GET) and a resource (pods/{name} under a namespace), so an agent can infer it fetches a single pod. But it is framed as a raw OpenAPI path rather than a plain-language statement of purpose, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like list_caas_pods or get_caas_pod_logs.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance whatsoever: no mention of when to call this instead of list_caas_pods, get_caas_pod_logs, or invoke_caas_api, and no prerequisites or context. The only cue is the bracketed [READ] tag, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.