Retrieve real recovery status, manual handling details, and current monitoring state for a specific problem event ID to resolve alert ambiguities.
按问题事件 ID 查询真实恢复、人工处置和当前监控状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventid | Yes | 问题事件ID（不是触发器ID） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a read/query operation and indicates the kind of status information returned, but it does not cover failure behavior, permissions, data freshness, or any other operational caveats. Basic transparency is present, but depth is limited.
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 states the verb, resource, key input, and expected output dimensions with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every word contributes.
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 a single required parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of sibling differentiation, but that is addressed under usage guidelines rather than this dimension.
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 100%, so the parameter is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; the schema's clarification that eventid is 'not the trigger ID' is the useful semantic and is already present.
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 '查询' (query) and identifies the resource as problem event fact details, enumerating the returned dimensions: actual recovery, manual handling, and current monitoring status. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_problem_summary or event_get, so it misses the top score.
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 when to use the tool: when you have a problem event ID and need recovery/handling/monitoring details. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to similar sibling tools, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.