Retrieve metrics and settings for a PRTG group by ID. Get the group's monitoring data and configuration in one call.
Get the metrics and settings of a single group by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Group ID (from prtg_list_groups). | |
| include | No | Comma-separated list of additional settings sections to include, e.g. 'all_sections' or 'path'. Omit for just the most relevant fields. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of signaling behavior. 'Get' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description names the returned content ('metrics and settings'). It does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or response structure, but for a simple by-ID fetch this is a moderate rather than severe gap.
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 sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the operation, resource, and identifier constraint, which is exactly as concise and structurally efficient as a simple tool description needs to be.
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 two-parameter retrieval tool, the description plus fully covered input schema is nearly complete: it states what the tool returns, requires an ID, and makes the include option available. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and the description does not enumerate default metrics/settings or explicitly route the user to prtg_list_groups for IDs.
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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds little parameter-level detail. The description's mention of 'metrics and settings' hints at what the `include` parameter might control, but the schema already documents both parameters adequately.
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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('metrics and settings of a single group by ID'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools and other get tools by naming 'group' as the target resource.
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 phrase 'single group by ID' implies the intended use case: retrieving details for one known group rather than listing groups. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus prtg_list_groups or other get_* siblings, and no mention of the prerequisite that the ID typically comes from prtg_list_groups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.