Skip to main content
Glama
imtrinity94

vcf-automation-mcp

by imtrinity94
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

blueprint_get_blueprint

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves details for a specific VCF Automation blueprint by ID, optionally selecting fields and revalidating it to return current validation errors.

Instructions

Returns blueprint details GET /blueprint/api/blueprints/{blueprintId}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
selectNoFields to include in content.
apiVersionNoThe version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information please refer to /blueprint/api/about
revalidateNoPerform a revalidation of the blueprint or just return the errors saved in the DB
blueprintIdYes(path)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the endpoint: it does not explain what blueprint details are returned, how revalidate behaves, or any auth/caching considerations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded, with no wasted prose. The endpoint path is somewhat redundant with the tool name and annotation title, but the overall structure is compact and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich schema descriptions and annotations, the definition is minimally adequate for invocation. However, it does not explain what 'blueprint details' contains, and since there is no output schema, an agent has little context about the response shape or how revalidate/select affect it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns blueprint details.' This is clear enough to distinguish a read operation from create/update/delete siblings. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely related read siblings such as blueprint_get_blueprint_version, blueprint_get_blueprint_request, or blueprint_get_blueprint_resources_plan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states the operation and HTTP endpoint, leaving the agent to infer whether it should call this or one of the many other blueprint-related retrieval tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools