Retrieve an AWS storage profile by ID to inspect its storage class details for VCF Automation IaaS resources.
Get AWS storage class Get AWS storage class with a given id GET /iaas/api/storage-profiles-aws/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of storage class. (path) | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information refer to /iaas/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 fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond restating that it is a GET by id — no mention of behavior when the id is not found, permission requirements, or what a profile represents.
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, but the first two sentences are near-verbatim repeats of the tool name, and the only genuinely additive content is the REST path on line three. Front-loading is fine; the redundancy costs it.
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 read-only by-ID fetch with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition is workable. However, with no output schema, the description should say what a storage profile returns (e.g., storage class, provisioning type), and it does not.
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 coverage is 100%, with the id parameter and the optional apiVersion both documented in the schema itself. The description says 'with a given id' but adds no format, sourcing, or example beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get AWS storage class') scoped to a single entity by id, which lets an agent distinguish it from the plural list sibling iaas_get_aws_storage_profiles. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but 'with a given id' communicates the single-item scope clearly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'with a given id' hints that this is a by-ID lookup rather than a listing, but the description never says when to choose this over iaas_get_aws_storage_profiles, iaas_get_storage_profile, or provider-specific variants. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.