get_incidentRetrieve a Kener incident by ID with its complete update timeline in chronological order to track status changes and resolutions.
Get one incident with its update timeline (oldest first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incident_id | Yes | Kener incident ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the incident's update timeline is included and ordered oldest first, which is not stated by the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and the notable return ordering detail.
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 low-complexity, single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It states what is fetched and adds the timeline ordering, with no critical gaps for this tool's complexity.
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 single incident_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as a Kener incident ID. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('incident'), and explicitly scopes it to one incident rather than a list. This distinguishes it from list_incidents, create_incident, resolve_incident, and post_incident_update without ambiguity.
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?
Usage is implied: retrieve a single incident by ID, as opposed to listing incidents. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.