get_resourceFetch an Azure resource by its full ARM ID and supply the required api-version to retrieve its details.
Fetch a resource by its full ARM id. Provide the api-version for the resource type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiVersion | Yes | API version for this resource type, e.g. 2023-07-01 | |
| resourceId | Yes | Full ARM resource id (/subscriptions/…/providers/…) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that an API version must be supplied, which is prerequisite-flavored but reveals nothing about auth, throttling, or return shape; with annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but minimal.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its key input. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.
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 read-only fetch of a single resource, the description plus rich annotations are nearly sufficient. Since no output schema exists, one might expect a brief note on what is returned, but the tool's nature makes that largely inferable.
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%, with both params documented (full ARM id format, API version example), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the same two inputs without adding format, syntax, or validation detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 ('Fetch a resource by its full ARM id'), which contrasts naturally with the list_* siblings. It clearly distinguishes single-resource retrieval from enumeration, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.
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?
The only usage-adjacent sentence ('Provide the api-version for the resource type') is a parameter instruction rather than guidance on when to use this tool. There is no mention of when to prefer it over list_resources or any prerequisite/exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.