Retrieves a single deployment by ID from VCF Automation's IaaS API, enabling targeted inspection of deployment configuration and status.
Get a single deployment Get a single deployment. GET /iaas/api/deployments/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the deployment. (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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the raw HTTP path, which the annotation title already repeats; it says nothing about errors, auth, or what the returned deployment contains.
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 of which the first two are verbatim duplicates and the third is an endpoint path also present in the annotation title. There is no wasted length, but also no substance — the redundancy signals an auto-generated stub.
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 this could be adequate, but given a crowded sibling space of deployment getters, an agent still cannot tell which one returns the IaaS deployment versus the onboarding or deployment-service 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, apiVersion) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 states 'Get a single deployment', which is simply a restatement of the tool name. With near-identical siblings like deployment_get_deployment_by_id, onboarding_get_deployment_by_id, and iaas_get_deployments, it gives no basis for telling them apart.
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 indication of when to use this versus the multiple other single-deployment and list-deployment getters. No prerequisites, no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.