Retrieve all fabric flavors from VCF Automation IaaS, optionally including core counts, to inspect available compute sizing options.
Get fabric flavors Get all fabric flavors GET /iaas/api/fabric-flavors
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information refer to /iaas/api/about | |
| includeCores | No | If set to true will include cores in response. |
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 by structured fields. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no pagination, no response shape, no note about whether results are scoped to the calling user's project or all fabric-backed endpoints.
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-loads the action, but the first two lines are redundant paraphrases of each other and the third is a URL already reflected in the tool name and annotation title. Three lines to convey one line of 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?
There is no output schema, so the description should do more work describing what a 'fabric flavor' is and what a listing returns. It leaves the core domain concept and the return content entirely unexplained for an agent that must choose among dozens of iaas_get_* listing tools.
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 only two optional params (apiVersion, includeCores), both of which the schema documents itself. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies rather than a higher score.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get all fabric flavors') and even pins the REST route, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes 'fabric flavors' from the many adjacent list tools in the same family (iaas_get_flavors, iaas_get_flavor_profiles, iaas_get_fabric_aws_volume_types), which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved here.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The description is three restatements of the name plus the endpoint path, with zero routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.