get_serverRetrieves details for a specific cloud server in an ArvanCloud region by server ID, enabling agents to inspect server status and configuration.
[READ] OpenAPI IaaS 1.0: GET /regions/{region}/servers/{id} (ecc/v1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | Cloud Server region id from official docs, e.g. ir-thr-c2 | |
| server_id | Yes |
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 '[READ]' tag adds nothing new. The description discloses nothing about error behavior, required permissions, or what a successful retrieval returns, leaving the behavioral burden entirely on the annotations.
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 short line with the operation type front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency — the terse endpoint notation leaves real gaps that a few more words could have closed.
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, the description is the only place return values could be described, and it says nothing about the server object returned. For a read tool with an undocumented required parameter, the definition is too thin to let an agent call it confidently.
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 only 50% (server_id is undocumented), so the description should compensate. Instead it merely echoes the path template '{region}/servers/{id}', adding no format, source, or validation meaning beyond what the schema already shows for region.
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 names a specific resource (server) and operation (GET by id within a region), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it is written as a raw endpoint string rather than plain language, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like list_servers, list_servers_v3, or the generic invoke_iaas_v1_api, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.
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, no mention of prerequisites (auth, region validity), and no reference to alternative tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this fetches one existing server rather than listing or invoking the API generically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.