Retrieves a VCF Automation IaaS project by ID, returning its details for inventory, access, or automation checks. Provide the project ID to fetch the exact record.
Get project Get project with a given id GET /iaas/api/projects/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the project. (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. The description adds only endpoint repetition and gives no response, not-found, or authorization behavior, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
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 very short and front-loads the operation. However, the first two lines repeat 'Get project' and the endpoint duplicates the annotation title, so there is slight redundancy.
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 complete schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is sufficient to call it with an id. It still omits return/error context and any routing guidance among sibling project GET tools, so it is not fully complete.
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%, and both id and apiVersion are documented in the schema. The description's 'given id' aligns with the required parameter but adds no format or versioning detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project') and references the required id and endpoint, so the basic purpose is clear. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling project GET tools such as iaas_get_projects or project_get_project, preventing 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?
It only says 'with a given id'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternatives like iaas_get_projects for listing, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.