Retrieve all volumes attached to a specific OpenStack server by instance name or ID. Use it to inspect storage mappings and verify which volumes are connected to a server.
Get all volumes attached to a specific server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance_name | Yes | Name or ID of the server instance |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.8Input schema / properties / instance_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Name or ID of the server instance"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation and the output schema covers the return shape. The description does not add details about permissions, missing-server behavior, or rate limits, which is a gap for an unannotated tool.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the resource and scope.
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 getter with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention server-not-found behavior or note the distinction from get_volume_list, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single instance_name parameter is documented as name or ID. The description reinforces that the server is specific but does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: get all volumes attached to a specific server. It distinguishes the result from a general volume list by scoping to one server, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied by 'attached to a specific server', which tells the agent this is the server-scoped volume lookup. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_volume_list or other volume-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.