Fetch one subnet by extId from Nutanix Prism Central and return its current ETag, enabling safe downstream updates and writes.
[READ] One subnet by extId, with its current ETag surfaced for downstream writes.
Args:
ext_id: Subnet extId as returned by subnet_list.
target: Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ext_id | Yes | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely new context: it surfaces an ETag for downstream writes, which signals optimistic-concurrency usage. It doesn't mention pagination or error behavior, but for a single-item read the disclosure is above average.
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?
Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and one-line purpose, then a compact args block. The docstring-style formatting is slightly verbose but every line earns its place by documenting a parameter.
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 2-param read with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, both parameters, and the ETag-return contract. It could mention what happens when the ext_id isn't found, but it is complete enough to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains ext_id is the Subnet extId from subnet_list and that target is a Prism Central name from config with a default-omission rule. Both parameters get meaning the bare schema lacks.
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?
States a specific verb ('get') and resource ('One subnet by extId'), and the '[READ]' prefix distinguishes it from sibling mutators like subnet_create/delete. An agent can immediately tell this is a singular read operation versus subnet_list.
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 the read use-case and explains the ext_id comes from subnet_list ('as returned by subnet_list'), which routes the agent through the list-then-get pattern. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., bulk retrieval), but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.