get_snapshotRetrieve a single snapshot by ID to view its source volume, type, size, and creation time. Use it to inspect snapshot details before restore, cleanup, or storage planning.
Get one snapshot by ID: source volume, type, size, and creation time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Snapshot identifier (UUID), from list_snapshots. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds useful behavior context by enumerating the fields the snapshot record exposes. It omits whether a missing ID errors versus returns empty, and says nothing about authorization scoping or the openWorldHint implications.
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 with zero filler: the verb, resource, lookup key, and payload are all in the first clause. Slightly telegraphic as a colon-list fragment, but every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies the essential retrieval contract and a summary of what is returned. Only the error/not-found behavior is left unspecified, a minor gap at this complexity.
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 id parameter is already documented as a UUID sourced from list_snapshots, so the schema carries nearly all the weight. The description only restates that lookup is by ID, adding no format or validation detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get one snapshot by ID') and enumerates the fields returned (source volume, type, size, creation time), which clearly separates it from the list_snapshots sibling. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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: 'by ID' suggests it is the follow-up call after list_snapshots, and the id parameter's schema note reinforces that. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_snapshots or list_block_storage_snapshots.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.