Get host details by ID.
Get host details by ID.
Args: settings: Application settings host_id: Host identifier
Returns: Host details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host_id | Yes | ||
| controller | No | Controller to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / properties / controllerAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Controller to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default."
+}v0.2.0Does 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 it discloses almost nothing: no authorization requirements, no error behavior for a missing/invalid host, and no note that the result is scoped to the selected controller. For an unannotated tool this is a significant gap.
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 short and front-loads the essential purpose in one sentence, which is good. But the docstring Args/Returns boilerplate contributes little, and one of its arg entries ('settings') is not a real parameter, so the structure is not entirely trustworthy.
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?
An output schema exists, so the terse 'Returns: Host details' is acceptable. But with no annotations and a phantom 'settings' parameter reference, the description does not supply enough context for correct invocation relative to its siblings.
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 only 50%: 'controller' is well documented in the schema, but 'host_id' has no schema description, and the description's 'Host identifier' is a tautology that adds nothing. Worse, the Args block lists a 'settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema (additionalProperties: false), which could mislead the agent.
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 ('Get host details by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_hosts', so the retrieval-singular vs. list-plural choice is left to inference.
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 guidance on when to use this versus 'list_hosts', when an ID is already known, or what happens if the ID is unknown. The only usage hint present ('see list_controllers', 'select_controller') lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.