Retrieve a Dynatrace problem's status, root-cause entity and evidence, impacts, and recent comments by problem ID to support incident diagnosis and root-cause analysis.
Problem details: status, root-cause entity, root-cause evidence, impacts, recent comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| problem_id | Yes | Problem id (internal id or display id such as P-12345) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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's contribution is naming the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not disclose depth limits on 'recent comments' (how many, how recent), whether evidence/impacts are summarized subsets of the dedicated siblings, or what happens for an unknown problem id.
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, front-loaded line with no filler; every listed field signals content. It is terse rather than padded, which is the right trade-off for a simple getter, though the terseness edges toward under-specification.
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 read-only, single-parameter getter with no output schema, listing the returned content is the main thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is not stating how this relates to the evidence/impact/comment siblings, but the core call path is adequately covered.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that problem_id accepts an internal id or a display id such as P-12345. The description adds no format, resolution, or error semantics on top of that, so the baseline 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?
The phrase 'Problem details' plus the enumerated fields (status, root-cause entity, evidence, impacts, comments) makes it clear this is a single-problem retrieval that bundles related sub-resources. However there is no verb and no explicit differentiation from siblings like get_problem_evidence, get_problem_impact, and list_problem_comments, which appear to return the same content the description claims to include.
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 guidance on when to call this versus get_problem_evidence, get_problem_impact, list_problem_comments, or list_problems. An agent cannot tell whether this tool is a lightweight summary or a full aggregate that makes the specialist siblings redundant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.