Retrieve details for a single KVM host by ID from an OLVM or oVirt engine. Use it to inspect host inventory and status when you know the host identifier.
[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?
The '[READ]' tag and the annotation readOnlyHint=true agree, so the safety profile is clear. Beyond that the description adds only the target-default behavior ('omit to use the default'); it says nothing about error behavior when an id is unknown, pagination, or output shape.
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?
Two short, front-loaded lines: the read scope comes first, then a compact Args block. Nothing is padded, though the host_id line adds little.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the resource, the id requirement, and the target default. An agent has enough to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: target is explained as an engine target name from config with an omit-to-use-default rule, which is not derivable from the schema. host_id is documented only as 'Host id', which is essentially a restatement.
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 and resource (retrieve one KVM host) and scopes it by id, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. The parenthetical '(see host_list)' cross-references the sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast the two (single host vs. listing).
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?
'(see host_list)' implies the agent should use host_list to discover ids before calling this tool, which is useful implicit routing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement of prerequisites beyond that pointer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.