Fetch a single Splunk alert's configuration—SPL, schedule, trigger condition, actions, and ACL—by name, app, and owner.
Get one alert (saved search with alerting): SPL, schedule, trigger condition, actions, ACL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | App namespace. Default search. | |
| name | Yes | Alert (saved search) name. | |
| owner | No | Owner username. Default any (-). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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. While it lists the returned fields, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. The verb 'Get' suggests read-only behavior, but that is not explicitly disclosed, and there is no mention of error behavior or access requirements.
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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get one alert') and efficiently lists the returned fields in a compact colon-separated list. No unnecessary words or repetition; every element adds value.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it clearly states the resource type and enumerates the return fields. However, it omits any mention of permissions or error handling, which might be expected in a Splunk context, though these may be implicitly understood from the environment.
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%, with each parameter (app, name, owner) already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only clarifying that the 'name' refers to a saved search with alerting. Since the schema carries the parameter details, this is adequate.
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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'one alert', and clarifies that an alert is a 'saved search with alerting'. It distinguishes from list_alerts by focusing on a single item and enumerates the specific fields returned (SPL, schedule, trigger condition, actions, ACL), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single alert, which naturally differentiates it from list_alerts (plural). However, it provides no explicit statement of when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. The usage context is inferred but not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.