Retrieve a single IaaS block device by its ID to inspect its configuration and details.
Get BlockDevice Get a single BlockDevice GET /iaas/api/block-devices/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the block device. (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 elsewhere. The description adds only the raw REST path, with no statement about error behavior, permissions, or what a 404 means — essentially nothing beyond structured data.
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 same fact is restated three times ('Get BlockDevice', 'Get a single BlockDevice', 'GET /iaas/api/block-devices/{id}') — redundant rather than wasteful in length. Two of the three lines earn no additional information.
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 trivial single-resource read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, an agent can invoke it correctly from what is present. Coverage is adequate but minimal; there is no output shape (no output schema) and no hint about relations to disks/machines.
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%, with both the required 'id' path parameter and optional 'apiVersion' documented in-schema. The description contributes nothing about parameter meaning, so 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single BlockDevice') and the singular framing implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling iaas_get_block_devices. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is by implication rather than statement.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus iaas_get_block_devices or iaas_get_machine_disks, no prerequisites, and no note about what a missing/unknown id yields. The agent must infer the choice purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.