get_infrastructure_asset_costRetrieve a single infrastructure asset cost by ID to view its amount, then check organization settings for the currency code before presenting it.
Get a single infrastructure asset cost by ID. Amounts are bare numbers with no currency: call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Infrastructure asset cost ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: returned amounts are bare numbers with no currency attached. That is a real gotcha an agent would otherwise misreport.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action first and the currency caveat second. Every sentence earns 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, yet the description proactively explains the key property of the return value (bare, unitless amounts) and how to resolve currency. That covers the main ambiguity for a simple single-get; error/failure behavior is the only omission.
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 single 'id' parameter is fully described in the schema as a UUID pattern. The description adds only 'by ID', so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema. Baseline 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a single infrastructure asset cost by ID'), and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from list_infrastructure_asset_costs. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
It gives a concrete prerequisite workflow: call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating an amount. That is actionable when-to guidance, though it doesn't contrast with list_infrastructure_asset_costs or say what happens if the ID is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.