Retrieve a topology group by ID or exact name, including its topology profiles, to inspect SD-WAN fabric topology configuration.
Get one topology group (by ID or exact name) with its topology profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topology_group | Yes | Topology 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. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the description usefully discloses that topology profiles are included in the result, but it says nothing about behavior when the identifier is unknown/ambiguous, permission requirements, or result size.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the qualifier and return scope appended. No filler at all.
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 tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what is fetched and what comes back. Only error/not-found and access behavior are absent, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID or exact name' restates the schema's own wording, adding slight emphasis on exact-match semantics but no information beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.
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 topology group') and scopes it to a single record rather than a collection, which implicitly separates it from list_topology_groups. It also notes the payload includes topology profiles, so an agent knows the return is more than the group object.
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 only implied: 'one ... by ID or exact name' signals single-record lookup, and the sibling list_topology_groups is the obvious alternative, but the description never names it or states the condition for choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.