Retrieves detailed information for a single KVM host by its host ID from an OLVM or oVirt engine, enabling health and capacity checks.
[READ] One KVM host by id (see host_list).
Args: host_id: Host id. target: Engine target name from config; omit to use the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| host_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The '[READ]' prefix signals a read operation, but the description does not disclose behavior such as error cases, whether the host must exist, what fields are returned, or any side effects. It adds only the scoping to a single host by id.
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 short and front-loaded with the '[READ]' marker and the core purpose. The Args section is compact and useful. It earns its place, though the 'see host_list' reference is slightly terse.
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 get-by-id tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks details about return value shape, error behavior, and any prerequisites, but the tool's simplicity and the sibling list help an agent infer context. A bit more behavioral context would make it complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains host_id as 'Host id' and target as 'Engine target name from config; omit to use the default', which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it does not explain how host_id is formatted or how target selection works in practice.
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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('one KVM host by id'), and references host_list as the sibling for listing. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other get-style siblings like storage_domain_get or vm_get beyond the resource name.
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 by saying 'see host_list' and by naming the host_id argument, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides minimal context: use this to fetch a single host by id, while host_list is for listing. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.