Retrieve a VCF Automation token by its URN ID to inspect token details or verify identity. Pass the required token ID as the path parameter for direct API lookup.
Retrieves a specific token GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/tokens/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Token ID URN (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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — the endpoint line merely restates the annotation title — and does not note token visibility/ownership scoping or whether expired tokens are returned.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded with the action. The second line (the URL) duplicates the annotation title and earns little, but the overall brevity is not a problem.
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?
A simple single-resource read with a fully documented single required parameter, complete annotations and no output schema. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Token ID URN (path)'). The description adds no extra meaning about the id format, so the 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+resource ('Retrieves a specific token') and the underlying endpoint, which implies single-resource retrieval as opposed to the sibling list tool provider_get_tokens. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 word 'specific' implies this is the by-id lookup and provider_get_tokens is the list variant, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.