Retrieve a single OLVM or oVirt virtual machine by its ID, with an optional engine target, to inspect VM details for inventory and diagnosis.
[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?
The '[READ]' tag merely restates the existing readOnlyHint=true annotation, so it adds no behavioral value. No information is given about error behavior, missing-VM handling, or what fields are returned.
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?
Brief and front-loaded with the operation, followed by a clean Args block. No filler sentences, though the parameter lines are terse to the point of being thin.
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 single-resource read with readOnlyHint annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient to invoke correctly; only the return shape and id format remain unstated.
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. It usefully documents that 'target' is an engine target name that defaults when omitted, but 'vm_id: VM id' is circular and adds nothing about format or source.
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: retrieves one VM by id, and the parenthetical '(see vm_list)' signals the sibling that handles the collection case. It is distinguishable from vm_list, though it gives no cue about vm_stats or vm_health_rca.
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 '(see vm_list)' pointer implies the list-vs-single distinction, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the related read tools (vm_stats, vm_health_rca) that could serve similar lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.