Retrieves a specific fabric compute by its ID from VCF Automation IaaS, returning its details for inventory and infrastructure management.
Get fabric compute Get fabric compute with a given id GET /iaas/api/fabric-computes/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the fabric compute. (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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no error behavior for an unknown id, no auth/scope requirements, no note on what a 'fabric compute' 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 and front-loaded, but the three lines are near-verbatim restatements of the same fact ('Get fabric compute' / 'Get fabric compute with a given id' / 'GET /iaas/api/fabric-computes/{id}'). Terse, yet redundant rather than dense.
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 getter with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema there is no hint at all about what a fabric compute record contains, which is the one gap the description could have closed.
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% (both 'id' and 'apiVersion' are documented), so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'with a given id' merely echoes the schema and adds no format, sourcing, or versioning guidance for apiVersion.
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 fabric compute') and narrows scope to a single record via 'with a given id'. It never names the closely related sibling iaas_get_fabric_computes (the list variant) or iaas_update_fabric_compute, so differentiation is left to the agent.
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 the list endpoint, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a prior list call to obtain the id), and no exclusions. The path template '/fabric-computes/{id}' implies single-record retrieval but that is inference, not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.