Retrieve detailed information for one XCP-ng host by UUID, including version, build, memory, and VMs. Use host_list to find the host UUID.
[READ] Detail for one host by uuid (version, build, memory, VMs).
Args:
host_id: Host uuid (see host_list).
target: Xen Orchestra target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| host_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the '[READ]' tag is consistent with it. With no output schema, the description adds real behavioral value by naming the fields returned (version, build, memory, VMs) and by disclosing the default-target fallback behavior for the optional parameter.
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 blocks, front-loaded with the read tag and the one-line purpose, followed by only the two argument notes that the schema does not supply. No filler sentences.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both arguments, and the main returned fields, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of noting error behavior for an unknown uuid or the target-resolution failure mode.
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 carries the full burden and largely meets it: host_id is identified as a host uuid with a pointer to host_list, and target is explained as an XO target name from config whose omission selects the default. The target explanation stays vague about which config source and valid values, keeping it below 5.
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 resource and scope: detail for ONE host identified by uuid, contrasted implicitly with the list-style sibling host_list. The parenthetical enumeration (version, build, memory, VMs) further pins down what kind of detail is returned. Not quite a 5 because the verb is nominalized ('Detail for') rather than an explicit action verb.
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?
It tells the agent where to obtain the required input ('see host_list') and how to handle the optional target ('omit for the default'), which is useful routing. However, it never states when to reach for host_get versus a sibling such as pool_get or vm_get, or any precondition beyond the uuid lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.