backingimage_getRetrieves details of a specific Longhorn backing image by its name. Use this to inspect a single backing image's configuration and status.
Get a single backing image by name. Longhorn docs: https://longhorn.io/docs/1.12.1/advanced-resources/backing-image/
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation, but it does not disclose behavior such as errors for missing names, return format, permission requirements, or whether the operation is purely read-only beyond the word 'Get'.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the core behavior is in the first sentence, and the documentation link is a useful addition. No words are wasted.
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 single-parameter get operation, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, the selection criterion, and provides a documentation link. It does not describe error behavior or return shape, but the resource name and action make the expected result fairly clear.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that the single 'name' parameter identifies which backing image to retrieve. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare 'type: string' declaration, though it does not detail exact matching or formatting rules.
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 ('Get'), a specific resource type ('backing image'), and a selection criterion ('by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like backingimage_list, backingimage_create, and backingimage_delete.
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 implies usage when a single, known backing image is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over backingimage_list or provide any exclusions. Usage context is only implicit through the phrase 'single... by name'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.