Retrieve detailed information about a specific hypervisor or all hypervisors to inspect status, capacity, and configuration for OpenStack operations.
Get detailed information about hypervisors
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hypervisor_name | No | Name/ID of specific hypervisor or "all" for all hypervisors | all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.8Input schema / properties / hypervisor_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Name/ID of specific hypervisor or \"all\" for all hypervisors"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not deliver: it does not confirm this is a read-only operation, does not mention required permissions or whether 'all' could be expensive, and says nothing about the nature of the returned details. An output schema exists, which relieves it of explaining return values, but the safety and cost profile remains undisclosed.
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 sentence with no wasted words and the resource front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine economy.
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 with a full output schema, the minimum needed to call it correctly is present. Missing are the behavioral cues normally expected when no annotations exist: read-only confirmation and the cost of requesting all hypervisors.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented, including the 'all' default. The description adds nothing beyond that, which meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('hypervisors') so the target is unambiguous, but 'detailed information' is vague about what details are returned. Unlike siblings such as get_load_balancer_details, the description gives no hint of scope or content, so differentiation rests entirely on the resource noun.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only scoping hint is the schema's 'all' default, not the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.