Retrieves a specific VCF Automation policy by its UUID, optionally including computed statistics, so you can inspect policy details and usage.
Returns a specified policy. Find a specific policy based on the input policy id. GET /policy/api/policies/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Policy ID (path) | |
| computeStats | No |
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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond restating the GET endpoint and retrieval purpose; it does not mention permissions, missing-id behavior, or response characteristics.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is slightly redundant: 'Returns a specified policy' and 'Find a specific policy based on the input policy id' restate the same idea, and the endpoint line duplicates the annotation title.
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 lookup, the core retrieval behavior is clear and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and an undocumented computeStats parameter, the definition leaves the agent without guidance on what the returned policy includes or what computeStats changes.
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?
The schema describes only the required id parameter as 'Policy ID (path)', and the description reinforces that the policy id selects the policy. The computeStats parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving half of the parameters semantically undocumented.
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 and resource: returns a specified policy, retrieves a specific policy by policy id. It implicitly distinguishes from list tools like policy_get_policies by emphasizing a single specified policy, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or siblings.
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 implied: use this tool when you have a policy id and need that specific policy. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as policy_get_policies, no exclusions, and no prerequisite guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.