Retrieve a single rule group within a NAT policy by providing policy and group IDs, enabling targeted inspection of network address translation rules.
Get a single rule group within a NAT policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | ||
| policy_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond implying a read operation. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or safe, nor does it mention any side effects or special requirements.
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 description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is slightly too terse, but still efficient.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not. The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and expectations.
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%, meaning the parameters (`policy_id` and `group_id`) lack any semantic explanation in the schema or description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining the purpose or format of these parameters.
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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('rule group'), and the context ('within a NAT policy'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like list, create, delete, and move operations.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as `sdcloud_list_nat_policy_rule_groups` or `sdcloud_get_nat_policy_rule_in_group`. No context, prerequisites, or exclusivity conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.