Retrieve a sensor-state summary for a specific probe, group, or device by providing its ID. Quickly assess overall sensor health and status in one view.
Get a sensor-state summary scoped to one probe, group, or device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Probe, group, or device ID (from prtg_list_probes, prtg_list_groups, or prtg_list_devices). |
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 full burden. The verb 'Get' conveys read-only intent and the summary scope is stated, but the description does not disclose what the summary contains, whether it aggregates across child objects, or what happens for invalid IDs. No contradictions exist.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: action, resource, and scope.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what a sensor-state summary looks like or how it differs from the similarly named prtg_get_sensor_status_summary. An agent could still call it correctly, but with some ambiguity.
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% and the id parameter is well-documented with its source listing functions. The description itself adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 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 identifies a specific verb and resource: get a sensor-state summary scoped to a probe, group, or device. It distinguishes itself from most siblings by naming the object scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with prtg_get_sensor_status_summary, which sounds very similar.
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 scope phrase 'scoped to one probe, group, or device' implies the appropriate context, and the id parameter description indicates source tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over prtg_get_sensor_status_summary or prtg_get_sensor_data, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.