Retrieve a single Datto EDR alert by its GUID, optionally searching the alert archive table, to inspect alert details or triage incidents.
Get one Datto EDR alert by id (GET /api/Alerts/{id}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Object id (GUID) | |
| archive_table | No | Look the id up in the alert archive table |
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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description's confirmation of the GET endpoint is consistent with them. It adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what happens when the id is not found or how archive_table changes the lookup path — though that second point is at least covered in the schema.
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 the resource and lookup key first and the endpoint as supporting detail; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of omitting any usage or error context, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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 two-parameter read-only fetch, the description plus a fully documented schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations give an agent enough to call it correctly. There is no output schema, but since this is a single-record fetch by id the description does not need to restate the return shape to be adequate.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both id (GUID) and archive_table (archive lookup flag) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's endpoint path reinforces that id is a path parameter but contributes no additional meaning about the archive_table toggle or id format.
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 ('Get one') and resource ('Datto EDR alert') scoped by id, plus the underlying endpoint GET /api/Alerts/{id}, which makes the id semantics unambiguous. It never names datto_edr_alerts_list or datto_edr_alert_details_list, so the distinction from those siblings is left implicit.
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 implied — retrieve a single alert when you already have its id — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no routing to the list or details siblings. An agent can infer the case, but nothing in the text prevents it choosing this tool when it only has a filter rather than an id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.