Get incident
get_incidentGet a single incident by ID.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Incident ID |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
get_incidentGet a single incident by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Incident ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the scope ('single by ID'), not additional behavioral traits such as error behavior or prerequisites, so it provides minimal value beyond 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?
One sentence, thirteen words, directly front-loaded with the action.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only, idempotent, output schema present), the description is adequate to understand its function without further elaboration.
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 has 100% coverage with 'Incident ID' for the id parameter. The description's 'by ID' reinforces this but adds no additional semantic 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?
The description uses the verb 'Get' with resource 'incident' and specifies 'single ... by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling list_incidents and other tools.
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 communicates clear context: use this tool to retrieve a specific incident when you have its ID. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like list_incidents, but the 'single' qualifier implies the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.