Fetch an IaaS request's status and details by ID to monitor provisioning progress and troubleshoot failures.
Get request tracker Get request tracker with a given id GET /iaas/api/request-tracker/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the request. (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. The description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint path – it does not say what a request tracker record represents, whether it covers async IaaS operations, or how long records persist.
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, but the first line duplicates the second verbatim and the raw HTTP path adds little for an agent. Three lines where one well-formed sentence would suffice.
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-only single-resource lookup with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, this is minimally sufficient to invoke. The gaps are conceptual rather than operational: the agent still cannot tell what a request tracker is or how it differs from the plural or graph variants.
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 required 'id' and optional 'apiVersion' are documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'with a given id' merely confirms the required parameter and adds no format or sourcing detail (e.g., where to obtain the tracker ID). 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource (get / request tracker) and adds the path form with the ID, which is clear. However, it is largely a restatement of the tool name and does not distinguish this single-item fetch from the sibling iaas_get_request_trackers or iaas_get_request_graph.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the plural list tool or the request-graph tool, and no stated preconditions (e.g., the ID must come from a prior list call). The only hint is the path template implying a single lookup by ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.