Retrieve a specific monitor by its ID to inspect its configuration and status from the Invariance observability platform, enabling targeted monitoring and debugging.
Get a monitor by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does 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 by structured data. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'get' — no 404/error behavior or return shape — but this is a simple read and there is no contradiction with the 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?
The description is extremely concise with no filler; every word contributes to the core meaning. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this length is appropriate.
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 low complexity and readOnly annotations, the essential invocation information is present: resource and required parameter. However, with no output schema and no mention of return values or error behavior, it is only minimally 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?
The single parameter is a string 'id,' and the description maps it to the monitor identifier ('by ID'), which is adequate for an obvious one-parameter lookup. However, schema_description_coverage is 0% and the description does not add format, source, or example details.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('monitor') and identifies the lookup key ('by ID'). This clearly separates it from monitor_list, monitor_create, and monitor_update, though it does not explicitly discuss its relationship to other monitor sub-resources like invariance_monitor_executions.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The only implicit cue is 'by ID,' which suggests using it when an ID is already known, but there is no mention of monitor_list for discovery or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.