hcloud_show_scaling_configRetrieves details of a specific Auto Scaling configuration by region and scaling configuration ID, so you can inspect its settings.
Get details of a specific AS configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | Region | |
| scaling_configuration_id | Yes | Scaling configuration 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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what an 'AS configuration' contains, what happens on an unknown ID, or any auth/regional scoping caveat.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that conciseness shades into under-specification rather than crispness.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the essentials are present. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not say what a scaling configuration record returns, nor what 'AS' stands for, which an agent may need to interpret results.
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 two parameters are documented, albeit tautologically ('Region', 'Scaling configuration ID'). The description adds no format guidance such as the expected region code convention or whether the ID must come from the list endpoint, so it sits at the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 gives a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific AS configuration'), and the singular/plural contrast with hcloud_list_scaling_configs makes the single-item scope inferable. However, it never names the sibling tool or expands the 'AS' abbreviation, so the differentiation comes from the tool name rather than the description itself.
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 mention of prerequisites, and no reference to hcloud_list_scaling_configs as the way to discover the required ID. The word 'specific' implies an existing identifier, but the agent gets no explicit routing instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.