get_tool_schemaRetrieve a Gcore API operation's description, argument JSON schema, and result field names by operation name to validate inputs and interpret responses.
Get one Gcore API operation's description, argument JSON schema and result field names ('returns'; a{b,c} is a nested object, x[] a list), by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Operation name, e.g. cloud.instances.list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, by disclosing the three return components (description, argument schema, result field names) plus a decoding legend for 'a{b,c}' nested objects and 'x[]' lists. That return-shape detail is genuinely beyond the annotations; what's missing is any statement about failure behavior for an unknown name.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the inline notation legend is compact rather than wasteful. It is slightly dense for one sentence, but nothing in it fails to earn 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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by naming the three fields returned and explaining the nested-object and list notation. For a one-parameter introspection tool with safety annotations, the only real gap is error behavior for an unrecognized operation name.
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 schema itself supplies the format example 'cloud.instances.list', so the description's 'by name' adds little. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting on the single parameter.
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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('one Gcore API operation's description, argument JSON schema and result field names'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It implicitly separates itself from search_tools by saying lookup is 'by name', but it never names that sibling or any alternative 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: 'by name' hints that a name must be discovered first (e.g. via search_tools) and that this is a pre-call introspection step before call_read_tool/call_write_tool, but neither the prerequisite nor the sequencing is stated. There are no exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.