Retrieve all flavors defined in FlavorProfile, optionally including core details, to inspect available IaaS compute configurations.
Get flavors Get all flavors defined in FlavorProfile GET /iaas/api/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, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds only the scope hint that flavors come from FlavorProfile; it discloses nothing about pagination, result size, or whether the list is filtered by project or region — a real gap for an openWorld read that could return many entries.
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?
Three short lines with the purpose front-loaded. The trailing 'GET /iaas/api/flavors' largely duplicates the annotation title, but the waste is minor.
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?
Both parameters are documented in-schema and the read-only profile is carried by annotations, so the tool is callable as described. Since there is no output schema, the description could have said what a flavor record contains, and it never resolves the ambiguity with flavor-profile and fabric-flavor siblings.
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%, so apiVersion and includeCores are already documented in the schema. The description adds no interpretation of includeCores' effect on the payload, 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?
It states a specific verb and resource ('Get all flavors defined in FlavorProfile'), which is better than restating the name. But the sibling set contains iaas_get_fabric_flavors, iaas_get_flavor_profiles, and iaas_get_flavor_profile, and nothing distinguishes this tool's flavors from fabric or profile flavors, so an agent must guess which one it needs.
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 statement of when to use this versus iaas_get_fabric_flavors or iaas_get_flavor_profiles. Usage is only implied by the resource name, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.