Get SD-WAN configuration by ID.
Get SD-WAN configuration by ID.
Args: settings: Application settings config_id: Configuration identifier
Returns: SD-WAN configuration details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config_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 burden. It is a read operation by naming convention, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the config must exist, or error behavior. The 'Returns' line only restates that config details come back.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but the Args/Returns block is padding: it repeats parameter names and states the obvious return. Efficient in word count but not information-dense.
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 return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance against several sibling get/list tools, the description is only minimally viable for correct selection and invocation.
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 50%; config_id is documented only by the description's 'Configuration identifier' and the controller parameter is documented in the schema itself with default and see list_controllers guidance. The description adds little 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (SD-WAN configuration) qualified by ID, which is clear. It doesn't differentiate from the sibling list_sdwan_configs or get_sdwan_config_status, though the 'by ID' qualifier helps somewhat.
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 guidance on when to use this versus list_sdwan_configs (to find IDs) or get_sdwan_config_status (to check a config's state). An agent has no explicit routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.