Retrieves a backup target’s details and its recent backup runs using the target UUID, so you can inspect backup status and history before recovery or troubleshooting.
Get a backup target's details and its recent backup runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | Yes | Backup target ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to. It does add one real behavioral fact beyond them: the response bundles recent backup runs alongside target details. However, it says nothing about how many runs are returned, whether they are truncated, or what happens for an unknown target_id.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the primary result and appended with the secondary one. No filler or redundant restatement of the 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?
The tool is read-only with no output schema, so the description carries some burden for describing the return shape; it names the two things returned but not their structure, the cap on 'recent' runs, or error behavior for a missing target. Adequate but leaves real gaps.
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?
Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Backup target ID (UUID)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the ID's format or provenance, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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?
Specific verb and resource ('Get a backup target's details') with the added note that recent backup runs are included, which distinguishes it from the plain list tool. It does not explicitly name deployado_list_backup_targets, but the singular/plural distinction makes the difference inferable.
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 statement of when to use this versus deployado_list_backup_targets, and no prerequisites (e.g., that target_id must come from the list call). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.