Retrieve complete details for a specific anomaly rule using its ID. Obtain the rule ID from list_anomaly_rules, then get full configuration and metadata.
Get full detail for a single anomaly rule. Requires a rule ID from teramind_list_anomaly_rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Anomaly rule ID, from teramind_list_anomaly_rules. |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read operation and 'full detail' indicates the return scope, but it does not state error behavior, missing-ID handling, or whether any side effects exist; for a simple getter this is minimally acceptable.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated in the second sentence without redundancy.
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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it gets, how much detail, and where the ID comes from. It does not describe failure modes, but those are less critical given the simple read-only nature and required parameter.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already identifies the ID as an anomaly rule ID from teramind_list_anomaly_rules. The description repeats that provenance rather than adding new semantic information, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 resource ('full detail for a single anomaly rule'), clearly distinguishing it from list operations. It also names the upstream tool that supplies the required ID, which reinforces its role as a one-item getter among sibling list/get tools.
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?
It explicitly states the prerequisite: an anomaly rule ID must first be obtained from teramind_list_anomaly_rules. This gives an agent a clear entry condition, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer a sibling tool beyond the obvious get-one vs list distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.