Retrieve complete incident details, root cause analysis, and actionable recommendations for a given incident ID.
Get full details for a specific incident including root cause analysis and recommendations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incident_id | Yes | The incident ID (e.g., INC-005) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not modify data, or what permissions/errors might apply. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.
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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the action, target, and useful output content without unnecessary 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?
The description gives enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and likely output, especially by mentioning root cause analysis and recommendations. Since there is no output schema, this descriptive content partially fills the gap, though a more explicit return structure would make it fully complete.
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?
The single parameter incident_id is fully described in the schema with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but no additional clarification is needed for this simple parameter.
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 tool's function: retrieving full details for a specific incident. It specifies the resource (incident) and scope (specific incident ID), and mentions the included content (root cause analysis and recommendations), distinguishing it from broader tools like list-incidents.
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 use when full details of a single incident are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as list-incidents or export-report. No direct guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives, leaving some inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.