Retrieve a specific Zendesk trigger by its ID to view its configuration, conditions, and actions. Use this to inspect or analyze trigger details without modifying them.
Get a specific trigger by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Trigger ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is disclosed. The description itself adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, permissions, or response shape, but for a simple ID-based getter this is acceptable and there is no contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential operation and selection criterion in minimal space.
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 with one fully documented parameter and safe annotations, this description is largely sufficient. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make that a minor gap.
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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter as a Trigger ID. The description only repeats the concept of retrieving by ID and adds no extra meaning, so the baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('a specific trigger'), and the selection criterion ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_triggers, which retrieves multiple triggers, and create/update/delete_trigger, which perform other operations.
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?
The description implies that this tool should be used when a caller has a specific trigger ID and wants that single trigger, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_triggers. The context is clear enough for a simple CRUD getter, but explicit routing guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.