Retrieve details of a single virtual machine by its ID from an OLVM or oVirt 4.5 engine, enabling read-only inventory and diagnosis queries.
[READ] One VM by id (see vm_list).
Args: vm_id: VM id. target: Engine target name from config; omit to use the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm_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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It includes '[READ]' which signals a non-mutating operation, and states it retrieves one VM. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., not found), permissions, or any side effects. The read hint is valuable but limited; it adds some transparency but not rich behavioral context.
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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose and uses an Args section for parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The format is clean and scannable, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (single fetch by id) and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the parameters and the read nature, but does not specify the return format, error handling (e.g., missing VM), or pagination (not applicable). For a basic get tool, this is acceptable, but additional notes on error cases would improve completeness.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does so: vm_id is 'VM id' (minimal but accurate) and target is described as 'Engine target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the source and default behavior of target. The vm_id explanation is trivial but acceptable given its name.
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 clear verb+resource: 'One VM by id'. It distinguishes itself from vm_list by explicitly scoping to a single VM and referencing vm_list for the listing case. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.
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 indicates when to use this tool: to retrieve one VM by id, and points to vm_list for the alternative (listing). While it does not explicitly list when not to use it, the reference to vm_list provides a clear contrast. It is not exhaustive but sufficient for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.