Retrieve backup or restore plan status and details for a specific computer using its HID and plan GUID. Get actionable plan information to monitor and troubleshoot MSP360 backups.
Get status/info for a backup/restore plan on a computer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Plan ID (GUID). | |
| hid | Yes | HID of the computer. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is to get status/info, implying a read-only call, but it does not disclose what statuses are possible, whether errors are surfaced for missing plans, or any other behavioral traits.
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 short sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource while including a useful scope qualifier ('on a computer').
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 get-info tool with two well-documented parameters, the description conveys enough to identify the operation and inputs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could usefully state what kind of status or info is returned and how this differs from msp360_get_plan.
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%, so both 'id' and 'hid' are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, but it does clarify that the plan belongs to a computer, which aligns with the 'hid' parameter. This meets the baseline for fully schema-covered 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('status/info for a backup/restore plan on a computer'), which is reasonably clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling msp360_get_plan, but the phrase 'on a computer' and the hid parameter provide a distinguishing scope.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as msp360_get_plan or msp360_list_plans. The description implies it is for plan info, but it does not state exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.