Retrieve detailed information for a specific server by ID, including agent version, OS, architecture, and Docker version to support diagnostics and inventory checks.
Get detailed information about a specific server, including agent version, OS, architecture, and Docker version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server_id | Yes | Server 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content detail (agent version, OS, architecture, Docker version) that is not in the annotations, though it omits error behavior and permission requirements.
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?
A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and listing the most relevant returned fields. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read tool.
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 tool with one fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers what is returned, though it could mention invalid-ID or not-found behavior and does not explicitly route against deployado_list_servers.
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%, so the sole parameter server_id is already documented as a UUID in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation.
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 and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific server.' The word 'specific' implies retrieval by ID rather than listing, which helps distinguish it from deployado_list_servers, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you already have a server ID and need its details. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to use deployado_list_servers instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.