Retrieves a specific IaaS network by ID so you can inspect its configuration and properties in VCF Automation.
Get network Get network with a given id GET /iaas/api/networks/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the network. (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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint path — no note on behavior when the id is unknown (404), pagination, or what a 'network' object represents in this API.
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 first line 'Get network' is pure redundancy with the name and the second line restates it again. Only the endpoint path carries new 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?
For a simple read-by-id tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition is adequate to invoke correctly, and no output schema means return values need not be explained. However, with one of the largest sibling sets in the catalog containing several near-identical network lookups, the absence of any disambiguation leaves a real gap.
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 parameters, so the schema already documents 'id' (path) and 'apiVersion' fully. The description's phrase 'with a given id' corroborates but adds no format, sourcing, or versioning detail beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get network') plus the qualifying scope ('with a given id') and the underlying endpoint GET /iaas/api/networks/{id}, which tells an agent this is a single-resource read. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as iaas_get_networks (list) or iaas_get_fabric_network, so it falls 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus iaas_get_networks, iaas_get_fabric_network, or iaas_get_vsphere_fabric_network, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an id from a prior list call) are mentioned. The 'with a given id' phrasing only weakly implies the lookup use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.