Retrieves a custom naming record by ID from VCF Automation IaaS, enabling you to inspect its naming configuration for automation workflows.
Get Custom Name by Id GET /iaas/api/naming/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the custom name. (path) | |
| apiVersion | Yes | 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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, and the annotation title already contains the same GET path the description repeats. Nothing new is disclosed — no behavior on a missing ID (404 vs empty), no auth requirement, no response shape.
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?
Two short lines with the identifying information front-loaded and no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though the second line merely restates the annotation title.
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 two-parameter read this is minimally adequate, and the schema documents both inputs. With no output schema, however, the agent has no indication of what a Custom Name object contains, and the description does not compensate.
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%, so the id (path) and apiVersion parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.
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 Custom Name by Id"), which cleanly separates it from iaas_get_all_custom_names and iaas_get_custom_name_by_project_id in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of the list/project-scoped variants an agent could confuse it with. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-record lookup path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.