hcloud_show_nat_gatewayRetrieve details for a specific Huawei Cloud NAT gateway by region and NAT gateway ID, helping you inspect configuration and status before making network changes.
Get details of a specific NAT gateway
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | Region | |
| nat_gateway_id | Yes | NAT gateway ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context whatsoever — no mention of what details are returned, whether the lookup fails when the ID is unknown, or how region scopes the lookup — so it earns little credit beyond the annotations.
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 seven-word sentence with zero redundancy and the resource front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, but the brevity is close to under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 two-required-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the minimum an agent needs to invoke it is present. It nonetheless leaves the return payload and the region/ID relationship unexplained, which is a real gap for a 'show details' operation.
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 per the baseline this is a 3 even though the description says nothing about parameters. Worth noting the schema's own labels are bare ('Region', 'NAT gateway ID') and the description misses the chance to explain that region and ID jointly identify the gateway.
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 ('Get details') and resource ('a specific NAT gateway'), which clearly contrasts with the list-style sibling hcloud_list_nat_gateways by virtue of 'specific'. However, the description itself does no explicit sibling differentiation beyond the noun phrase, so an agent must infer the show-vs-list split from naming conventions.
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: nothing says to call this after listing gateways, nothing points to hcloud_list_nat_gateways or the SNAT/DNAT rule list tools as alternatives, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent gets an implied 'fetch one by ID' only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.