Retrieves custom names associated with a VCF Automation project ID via the IaaS API, helping clients resolve project-specific naming configuration.
Get Custom Names For Project Id GET /iaas/api/naming/projectId/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Project id. (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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path — no behavior on unknown project ids, empty results, pagination, or authentication scope — so it earns little above the annotation baseline.
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, front-loaded and free of padding. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline.
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 read-only lookup in a crowded iaas naming family with no output schema, the description should at least say what a custom-name record contains or how the project scoping affects results. Neither is present, leaving the agent to guess the return shape and its distinction from the sibling naming endpoints.
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%: both 'id' (project id, path) and 'apiVersion' are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description only echoes that the id is part of the path and adds no format, validation, or versioning guidance.
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 restates the tool name in title case ('Get Custom Names For Project Id') plus the raw HTTP route. The verb+resource are identifiable, but it adds no clarity about what a 'custom name' record is or how this differs from siblings such as iaas_get_custom_name and iaas_get_all_custom_names.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (iaas_get_custom_name, iaas_get_all_custom_names, iaas_get_custom_names_by_project_id-style variants). An agent must infer selection purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.