Retrieve an Event Topic by ID from the Event Broker API to inspect its details for VCF Automation workflows.
Retrieves Event Topic Retrieves Event Topic by id. GET /event-broker/api/topics/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of Event Topic (path) |
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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the REST path, no error behavior, auth scope, or missing-id semantics.
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 first two lines say the same thing twice ("Retrieves Event Topic" / "Retrieves Event Topic by id"), wasting half the text on repetition.
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?
A simple single-record read with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema; that is enough to call it, but the description stops short of describing what a topic record contains or how a miss is reported, which would matter given there is no output schema.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the id path argument fully. The description adds nothing about id format or source beyond the schema's "the id of Event Topic (path)".
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 (retrieve an Event Topic) plus the identifying key, which distinguishes it from the sibling eventbroker_get_all_event_topics. No explicit sibling callout, and the title line is restated rather than refined.
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?
"by id" implies the single-record lookup use case versus the list tool, but the description never says when to use this instead of eventbroker_get_all_event_topics or what happens if the id is unknown. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.