Retrieve metrics and settings for a single PRTG sensor by its ID. Optionally include extra configuration sections.
Get the metrics and settings of a single sensor by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Sensor ID (from prtg_list_sensors or prtg_list_alarms). | |
| 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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state what the response contains beyond 'metrics and settings', whether the include parameter changes the payload, or how errors and permissions behave. It is minimally informative but not misleading.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. The key resource, action, and selection criterion are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 read operation with fully documented schema, the description adequately states what the tool returns and how the sensor is identified. It lacks explicit guidance about choosing among sibling tools, but the essential invocation information is present.
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 schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and examples at 100% coverage. The description only reiterates the 'by ID' concept and adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('metrics and settings of a single sensor'), and specifies the selection method ('by ID'). It is clear, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling prtg_get_sensor_data, whose name suggests it also returns sensor metrics, so the description lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus prtg_get_sensor_data, prtg_get_sensor_status_summary, or prtg_list_sensors. The schema mentions that the ID comes from list tools, but the description itself does not state any usage context, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.