Retrieve a specific load balancer Action by ID and optionally poll it until success or error. Use it to inspect action status and results.
Get an Action
Returns a specific Action object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Action. | |
| wait | No | Poll the resulting action until success/error or timeout. |
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — notably it never mentions that `wait` defaults to true and will block/poll until the action succeeds, errors, or times out, which is the one behaviorally significant trait here.
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, but the two sentences are redundant — the second simply rephrases the first — and neither is front-loaded with differentiating information. There is no bloat, but nothing earns its place either.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what an Action object contains (status, progress, error, command) and how the default polling behaves. Neither is covered, leaving the agent without the context needed to interpret the result.
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% and both parameters (id, wait) are documented inline, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about what the id refers to or how polling behaves.
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?
"Get an Action / Returns a specific Action object" restates the tool name rather than explaining it. It never says this is a load-balancer-scoped action lookup, so nothing distinguishes it from hcloud_get_action, hcloud_get_load_balancer_action, or any of the dozen sibling *_actions_id tools.
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 guidance on when to use this versus hcloud_list_load_balancer_actions (to find an ID) or hcloud_get_action (generic lookup), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.