Fetches an Acronis tenant by UUID and returns its details, optionally embedding the tenant path or including deleted tenants. Use it to inspect a specific tenant.
Fetches a tenant by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | URI path parameters | |
| query | No | Query parameters |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0-semantically-releasedDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a non-destructive read, and the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not mention that deleted tenants are excluded by default (allow_deleted), nor that the call fails on an unknown or malformed UUID, which would be genuinely useful behavior context.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with multiple siblings.
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 simple read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It still leaves the agent without disambiguation from batch/related tenant tools and without any note on default exclusion of deleted tenants.
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% — tenant_id's UUID format plus embed_path and allow_deleted are all documented inline. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
"Fetches a tenant by ID" names a specific verb and resource, so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like acronis_fetch_tenants_batch, acronis_fetch_tenant_children, or acronis_fetch_tenant_usages, which an agent must differentiate on its own.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no statement about when to fetch a single tenant versus using the batch variant, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.