Fetch details and data-center-scoped status for a single OLVM or oVirt storage domain by ID, optionally targeting a specific engine, to verify domain health and configuration.
[READ] One storage domain by id, with its data-center-scoped status.
Args: domain_id: Storage domain id (see storage_domain_list). target: Engine target name from config; omit to use the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| domain_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates it. The description does add genuine context by noting the returned status is data-center-scoped and that target selection defaults from config, but it says nothing about failure behavior for a missing id or about target mismatch across data centers.
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?
One front-loaded sentence carrying the scope, followed by a tight two-item Args block. No filler, and the parameter notes each add information rather than restating the schema.
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 partially compensates by naming the payload ('one storage domain ... with its data-center-scoped status'), which tells the agent roughly what comes back. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, with only error/empty-result behavior unaddressed.
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 both parameters, and it largely does: domain_id is explained as a storage domain id sourced from storage_domain_list, and target is explained as an engine target name from config that defaults when omitted. Only the string format of domain_id (e.g., name vs. UUID) is left unspecified.
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 and resource with an explicit scope qualifier: fetch exactly one storage domain by id, returning its data-center-scoped status. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling storage_domain_list, which the description also cross-references.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'One storage domain by id (see storage_domain_list)' tells the agent to use the list tool to obtain ids, which is a soft routing hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what happens for an unknown id, and no contrast with other read tools beyond the list sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.