Retrieve detailed status, IP, plan, price, paid-until date, and recent events for a specific server or shared account using its server ID.
One server or shared account in detail: status, IP, plan, price, paid until, recent events. Scope servers:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Server id from list_servers: srv-<n> (root server) or sh-<n> (shared account) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the required 'servers:read' scope (an auth prerequisite) and an inventory of what is returned, including recent events. It doesn't cover behavior for an unknown or unauthorized id, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 field inventory is front-loaded and the scope note trails as a compact qualifier; there is no filler. The telegraphic fragment style is dense but slightly less scannable than a full sentence.
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 single-record read tool with a fully documented one-parameter schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the resource, the return content, and the auth scope. Only error/not-found behavior is left unstated, a minor gap at this complexity level.
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 id field already documents the srv-<n> / sh-<n> format and its origin in list_servers. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names the specific resource (one server or shared account) and enumerates the detail fields returned (status, IP, plan, price, paid until, recent events), which clearly separates it from the list_servers sibling. The verb is implied by 'in detail' rather than stated, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 single-server scope implies it is the follow-up to list_servers, and the schema's id description reinforces that by naming list_servers as the source. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative for bulk or filtered retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.