Fetches a single Dynatrace event with all properties by event ID, so you can inspect event details for troubleshooting and analysis.
One event with all properties (GET /api/v2/events/{id}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes all properties, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or what 'all properties' entails.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted prose. It is efficient, though the endpoint detail is technical rather than agent-oriented.
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 simple read-only lookup, the annotations and description together are minimally viable. However, the lack of an output schema and the undocumented event_id leave the agent to infer the return shape and parameter format.
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 0%, so the schema only says event_id is a required string. The description's endpoint reference implies an ID path parameter but does not explain the expected format, source, or constraints for event_id.
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 clearly identifies the resource and cardinality: it returns one event with all properties, and even names the underlying GET endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_events, but the singular scope is clear.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use get_event versus list_events, search_logs, or other event-related siblings. The singular 'one event' only weakly implies usage when a specific event ID is already known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.