Retrieve a security group by its ID to inspect its configuration and support access-control or network decisions.
Get security group Get security group with a given id GET /iaas/api/security-groups/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the security group. (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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that—no error behavior, permission needs, or return shape—so it is minimum viable given rich annotations.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the resource and endpoint immediately clear. Line 1 and line 2 are slightly redundant (both restate 'get security group'), a minor waste but not harmful.
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 get-by-id operation with complete schema and rich annotations, the essentials are covered. However, with no output schema, the description does not describe the returned security-group structure at all, leaving a gap an agent might want filled.
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 coverage is 100%, so both the required 'id' and the 'apiVersion' parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'a given id' and adds no format or constraint 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 security group with a given id') and the underlying endpoint, making clear it retrieves a single group by identifier. It implicitly contrasts with the list sibling iaas_get_security_groups via 'a given id', though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'with a given id' signals this is the single-object getter versus the plural list tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions, unknown-id behavior).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.