Retrieve a single Datto EDR detection rule by its GUID to inspect rule details and configuration.
Get one detection rule by id (GET /api/rules/{id}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Object id (GUID) |
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. The description adds the concrete endpoint mapping, which is mildly useful for API-aware agents, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid id or what a rule object contains.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the endpoint in parentheses as secondary detail. No wasted words.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, this is nearly sufficient; the rule object's shape is presumably documented by the sibling rules_list. A brief note on not-found behavior would make it complete.
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?
Single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, where the schema already documents it as an object GUID. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 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 detection rule by id') and includes the underlying endpoint, making the single-item fetch unambiguous against the sibling datto_edr_rules_list. It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.
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 by 'by id' and the GET path – the agent can infer this is for retrieving a single already-known rule, with rules_list as the natural alternative. No explicit when-to-use or prerequisite statement is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.