Retrieve a content source by its UUID from VCF Automation, optionally specifying an API version. Use it to inspect source details needed for content management workflows.
Get a content source GET /content/api/sources/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the content source (path) | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information, please refer to /content/api/about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond the raw HTTP path, which duplicates the annotation title; no information on lookup failures, visibility/scope of content sources, or returned shape (and no output schema exists to cover it).
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the second line ('GET /content/api/sources/{id}') merely repeats the annotation title and endpoint rather than adding information, so not every line 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 annotated read-only single-resource fetch with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly. It is thin on domain context (what a content source represents, whether the ID must come from a list call) and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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 both parameters (id, apiVersion) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no interpretation of the id (e.g., what a content source ID is or how to obtain one).
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 verb and resource ('Get a content source'), so the basic purpose is recoverable. However, it reads as a near-restatement of the tool name and offers no differentiation from sibling tools such as content_list_content_source, content_list_content_sources, or content_get_sync_request.
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 indication of when to use this single-item fetch versus the listing siblings (content_list_content_sources / content_list_content_source), and no prerequisites or context are given. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.