Retrieves a network domain by its ID from VCF Automation IaaS, enabling lookups of domain details for network configuration and validation tasks.
Get network domain Get network domain with a given id GET /iaas/api/network-domains/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the network domain. (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 fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top: no 404/not-found behavior, no permission requirements, no indication of what a network domain object contains. It repeats the HTTP verb and path already implied by the name and annotations' title.
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 lines that say the same thing twice ('Get network domain' / 'Get network domain with a given id') plus a raw HTTP path that duplicates the annotations title. Redundancy rather than waste-free front-loading.
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 single-resource read with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition is minimally viable. But with no output schema, the description should at least characterize what a network domain is or what comes back, and it does not.
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 both the id (path) and apiVersion parameters are already documented. The description only restates 'with a given id' and contributes no extra meaning such as id format, whether it is a URN or UUID, or how apiVersion affects the response. 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 domain with a given id', which is clearer than the bare tool name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling iaas_get_network_domains (the list variant), leaving the singular/plural routing to be inferred from the name alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the list sibling as an alternative, and no prerequisites (e.g. that an id must first be obtained from iaas_get_network_domains). The agent must infer all routing from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.