get_backup_statusRetrieve backup status and configuration for a VPSnet service using its order number, so you can verify backup coverage and settings.
Get backup status and configuration for a service Requires services:read when called with an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderNo | Yes | Tenant-owned service order number: 1-64 ASCII letters, digits or hyphens, e.g. VP12345 or VP12345-1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the required scope ('services:read when called with an API key'), which the agent needs before invoking. It stops short of noting rate limits or response shape.
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?
One compact sentence that leads with the core purpose. It is slightly marred by a missing sentence break and period before 'Requires', which makes the auth clause read as run-on text.
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 single-parameter read with a full annotation safety profile, the definition is adequate but not complete: there is no output schema, so the description could have said what 'status and configuration' returns, and it offers no help distinguishing this tool from the other backup-status/history siblings.
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% – orderNo is fully documented with format, length, and example in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get backup status and configuration for a service.' It is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like create_backup, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as get_backup_history or get_firecracker_backup_status.
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, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many backup-related siblings. The only condition given is an auth requirement (services:read with an API key), which is permission guidance rather than usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.