get_vm_package_by_labelRetrieve a VM package by its public label to view CPU, memory, and disk limits. Use it to verify package specifications before provisioning or resizing a VM.
Get one VM package by its public label (e.g. "standard-custom"), including CPU/memory/disk limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | VM package label, e.g. "standard-custom". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds that the payload includes CPU/memory/disk limits, which is genuinely useful return-content context, but says nothing about what happens when the label does not resolve or whether the lookup is exact-match.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and key in the first few words. The parenthetical example duplicates the schema's example, which is minor wasted wording, but nothing else is extraneous.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an explicit note on what the response contains, the definition is close to sufficient. No output schema exists, so the brief mention of returned limits does useful work, with only error behavior left unaddressed.
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 100% and the single parameter's schema entry already carries the same "standard-custom" example, so the description contributes no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource ("Get one VM package") and identifies the lookup key as a public label with a concrete example. This implicitly distinguishes it from the ID-based sibling get_vm_package and from list_vm_packages, 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: an agent can infer this is the right tool when it holds a label rather than an ID, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer get_vm_package or list_vm_packages, and no mention of prerequisites or failure behavior for an unknown label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.