Retrieve detailed metrics and settings for a specific PRTG probe using its ID. Returns current status and configuration to assess probe health and performance.
Get the metrics and settings of a single probe by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Probe ID (from prtg_list_probes). | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read ('Get'), but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, permission requirements, or how the 'include' parameter affects the result.
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 filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word contributes meaning.
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 getter with a fully documented schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the operation, resource, and ID mechanism. The lack of an output schema and minimal return-format detail leave a small gap, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major issue.
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 schema already documents both the id and include parameters. The description adds only high-level meaning ('metrics and settings') and does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states.
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'), a clear resource ('metrics and settings of a single probe'), and a precise selection criterion ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools like prtg_list_probes and from prtg_get_probe_network_info.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus a sibling such as prtg_get_probe_network_info. However, the schema provides helpful context by stating that the id comes from prtg_list_probes, implying a list-then-get workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.