Retrieves a specified user preference by classifier from VCF Automation, enabling clients to read stored preference values for configuration and workflow decisions.
Get specified user preference. GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/preferences/{classifier}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| classifier | Yes | (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world GET operation. The description adds the endpoint path but does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, or response shape beyond what the annotations and schema already imply.
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-loads the operation. The raw endpoint line is somewhat redundant with the annotation title and adds little semantic value, but the overall text is not bloated.
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 tool with one required parameter, the definition is minimally viable. However, it leaves the classifier semantics vague and does not help an agent distinguish this tool from the similarly named siblings.
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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description does not explain what the classifier value represents. The endpoint template shows classifier as a path parameter, but no format or examples are provided.
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 has a clear verb and resource: "Get specified user preference." However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely related sibling provider_get_user_preference, nor from provider_query_user_preferences.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The presence of provider_get_user_preference and provider_query_user_preferences makes the lack of routing guidance especially costly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.