rabbitmq_operator_policy_getRetrieve a RabbitMQ OperatorPolicy by cluster, virtual host, and policy name to inspect its configuration and namespace scope.
Get RabbitMQ OperatorPolicy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| vhost | Yes | ||
| cluster | Yes | ||
| namespace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about missing-resource behavior, cluster scoping, or cross-namespace lookup semantics.
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?
The text is short and front-loaded with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. One additional sentence on identity semantics would have cost little and added much.
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 retrieval tool requiring a three-part identity (cluster, vhost, name) with a 0%-documented schema and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about key composition and return shape. Only the annotations prevent this from being fully inadequate.
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% and all four parameters (cluster, vhost, name, namespace) are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not say what identifies a policy, whether cluster/vhost form a composite key, or why namespace is optional.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the list sibling or any alternative retrieval path. An agent can only infer 'fetch one by identity' from the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.