instabox-mcp

Get a machine

instabox_get_machine

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a cloud machine by ID or name to inspect its state, spec, template, auto-pause setting, labels, guest user, and runtime readiness.

Instructions

Get one machine by ID or name: state (creating, starting, running, stopping, stopped, suspending, suspended = paused, resuming, deleting, error), spec, template, auto-pause setting, labels, guest user and whether its runtime is ready.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "instabox_get_machine"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Machine ID (m_...) or its unique name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 the lifecycle state vocabulary and the set of returned attributes, which is useful context, but says nothing about error behavior (not-found) or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key operation first, followed by the returned attributes. The long parenthetical state list makes it dense but every element is informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, enumerating the returned fields (state, spec, template, auto-pause, labels, guest user, runtime readiness) meaningfully compensates. The main gap is undefined behavior on a missing or ambiguous name, which matters for an ID-or-name lookup.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by ID or name' merely restates the schema wording rather than adding format details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one machine by ID or name') and enumerates the returned attributes, which implicitly separates it from instabox_list_machines. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the singular 'one machine by ID or name' versus the sibling list tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus instabox_list_machines or instabox_get_machine_metrics, and no mention of what happens when the ID is unknown.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.