Retrieves the events, metric change points, and transactions Dynatrace collected for a specific problem, with optional root-cause-only filtering, to support troubleshooting and root-cause analysis.
Evidence Dynatrace collected for a problem (events, metric change points, transactions).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| problem_id | Yes | Problem id (internal id or display id such as P-12345) | |
| root_cause_only | No |
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 adds the useful detail that results span events, metric change points, and transactions, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or how limit applies.
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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the payload kinds parenthesized. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing detail.
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 tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description should explain the shape of returned evidence and the effect of limit/root_cause_only. As written, an agent can call it but cannot predict or control what comes back.
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 coverage is only 33%: problem_id is documented, but limit and root_cause_only have no descriptions anywhere. The description never explains that root_cause_only narrows results to root-cause evidence or that limit caps returned items, leaving two of three parameters semantically opaque.
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 the specific resource (evidence for a given problem) and enumerates what it contains (events, metric change points, transactions), which distinguishes it reasonably from get_problem and get_problem_impact. It lacks an explicit verb and doesn't name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 guidance on when this tool should be used instead of get_problem, get_problem_impact, list_events, or investigate_problem. The reader must infer that this is a drill-down companion to get_problem from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.