Monitoring AIops

prtg_sensor_details

Read-only

Fetch detailed status for a single PRTG sensor by ID. Returns name, status, and last value to inspect current monitoring health.

Instructions

[READ] Detailed status for one PRTG sensor (name, status, lastvalue, ...).

Args: sensor_id: PRTG sensor object id (objid). target: PRTG target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sensor_id": "<sensor_id>"
    },
    "name": "prtg_sensor_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`sensor_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the '[READ]' tag is largely redundant. The description does add useful context by indicating the fields returned (name, status, lastvalue), but says nothing about rate limits, output format, or how a missing sensor_id is handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and an efficient Args block; no filler sentences. Slightly more compressed than ideal but every element earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description is acceptable but thin: it hints at return fields without characterizing the response shape, and offers no guidance on errors or scope. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so: it clarifies sensor_id as a PRTG object id (objid) and explains target as a config name that defaults when omitted. This meaningfully compensates for the bare schema, though 'target from config' remains slightly vague about where that config comes from.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Detailed status for one PRTG sensor') and even enumerates return fields (name, status, lastvalue), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list tool prtg_sensors or from prtg_history, leaving the 'one sensor vs. many' distinction to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. It never explains why an agent would pick this over prtg_sensors or prtg_history when it wants sensor-level data, so routing must be inferred from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.