ws_vps_getRetrieve a VPS by its ID or name to view its specification, IP addresses, and power state.
Get one VPS by id or name, including its specification, IP addresses and power state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vpsId | Yes | VPS id or name, as returned by ws_vps_list. | |
| userId | No | Account id, or the literal "self" for the authenticated account. Defaults to "self". | self |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (specification, IPs, power state), which helps the agent set expectations for the response. No additional behavioral quirks are disclosed, but this is adequate given 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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (getting a VPS by id/name) and then lists the included data. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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-only get operation with full parameter documentation in the schema and safety covered by annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It states what the tool returns, which is the main missing piece beyond the schema. No output schema is needed for this level of tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so both vpsId and userId are already documented in the input schema. The description's mention of 'by id or name' aligns with the vpsId schema description but adds no new meaning beyond it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'VPS', and the scope 'by id or name', and enumerates the returned data (specification, IP addresses, power state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ws_vps_list (which lists multiple VPSs) and ws_vps_stats (which provides statistics).
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 use when a single VPS's details are needed, and the 'by id or name' qualifier signals that a known identifier is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, though the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to call this tool versus list/stats tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.