Retrieves a Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN policy group by ID or exact name, returning its profiles and associated devices for policy inspection and troubleshooting.
Get one policy group (by ID or exact name) with its profiles and associated devices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy_group | Yes | Policy group ID or exact name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload shape ('with its profiles and associated devices'), which is real value given there is no output schema. It says nothing about authentication requirements, behavior when the exact name is ambiguous or unmatched, or whether the lookup is read-only — gaps that matter for a lookup that accepts a fuzzy 'exact name'.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource, lookup key, and return contents are all packed in without redundancy.
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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a summary level and how to identify the record. It falls short only on edge-case behavior (ambiguous names, not-found responses) that an agent would need before calling with a name instead of an ID.
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?
Only one parameter exists with 100% schema description coverage, and the description's '(by ID or exact name)' merely restates the schema's 'Policy group ID or exact name'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the work and the description adds no syntax or format detail.
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 one policy group') and clarifies the return payload ('with its profiles and associated devices'). The word 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling list_policy_groups, though the sibling is never 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?
The phrase '(by ID or exact name)' implies you should call this when you already have an exact identifier rather than browsing, which is a usable usage signal. However, no alternative is named (e.g. list_policy_groups for discovery) and there is no statement of when not to use it, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.