Retrieve a zone by its ID to inspect its configuration and details in VCF Automation.
Get zone Get zone with given id GET /iaas/api/zones/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the zone. (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 safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the raw REST path — no note on what a zone object contains, what happens on an unknown id (404?), or any auth/versioning caveat.
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 and front-loaded, but the three lines say the same thing three times (name restated, restated again, then the raw endpoint). Trimming to one informative sentence would lose nothing.
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 two-parameter read with full schema coverage and complete annotations, this is minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly. It still leaves the agent without any sense of the returned zone shape or how the id is obtained, which is the one gap worth filling here.
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 `id` and `apiVersion` are already documented in the schema. The description's "with given id" merely echoes the schema; 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 verb+resource pair ("Get zone with given id") is identifiable, but the three lines are near-duplicates of each other and of the tool name, and nothing distinguishes this from iaas_get_zones (list) or iaas_update_zone / iaas_delete_zone in the sibling set.
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 statement of when to use this versus iaas_get_zones, iaas_get_projects_by_id_zones, or the update/delete zone tools. The only implied guidance is the path template, which the agent must infer from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.