ws_hosting_getRetrieve a hosting service's package, limits, and current usage by providing its ID or UUID.
Get one hosting service by id or uuid, including its package, limits and current usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | No | Account id, or the literal "self" for the authenticated account. Defaults to "self". | self |
| hostingId | Yes | Hosting id or uuid, as returned by ws_hosting_list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the response includes (package, limits, usage), which is useful and does not contradict the annotations.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and key identifiers, with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to the purpose.
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 operation with two parameters and annotations covering safety, the description fully conveys what the tool does and what it returns. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for userId and hostingId. The description's mention of 'by id or uuid' aligns with the hostingId parameter but adds no new parameter-level detail, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one hosting service'), the lookup key ('by id or uuid'), and the response content ('including its package, limits and current usage'). It distinguishes this from siblings like ws_hosting_list (list) and ws_hosting_vhost_get (vhost) without ambiguity.
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 the tool is for retrieving a single hosting service by identifier, which is the natural use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use ws_hosting_list to get an id', but the id-or-uuid phrasing and the sibling set make the intended usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.