get_region_by_labelRetrieve a specific American Cloud region by its public label, such as "us-west-0", to identify where resources are deployed.
Get one region by its public label (e.g. "us-west-0").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | Region label, e.g. "us-west-0". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the key is a *public* label, but says nothing about behavior when the label is unknown (error vs. empty) or about lookup cost/uniqueness.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the lookup key and an inline example. No redundant or filler wording.
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 trivial single-parameter getter with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is adequate but thin: there is no output schema, so a hint about what a region object contains or what happens on a miss would round it out.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'label' parameter is already documented with the same example, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.
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 plus the lookup key: get one region by its public label, with a concrete label example. This implicitly distinguishes it from get_region (by identifier) and list_regions, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 only implied: the phrase 'by its public label' signals you should reach for this when you hold a label rather than an ID. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as get_region or list_regions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.