get_os_optionsRetrieve available OS templates for reinstalling a VPSnet service using its order number; requires services:read access when using an API key.
Get available OS templates for reinstall 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a real behavioral detail not in annotations: the services:read permission requirement when using an API key. That's useful context beyond the annotations, but nothing about rate limits, pagination, 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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with purpose then the qualifier. Slightly terse/run-on ('reinstall Requires') but no wasted words.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, context, and auth. No output schema exists, so it could say more about what the returned OS templates look like (e.g., identifiers to feed into reinstall_os), which an agent would need.
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%, so the schema fully documents orderNo with pattern, length, and examples. The description adds no parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 available OS templates') plus the context in which it applies ('for reinstall'). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_plan_options, though it doesn't reference those siblings by name.
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?
'for reinstall' implies the usage context, and the sibling reinstall_os makes the pairing inferable. However, there's no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives or that it should be called before reinstall_os.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.