Retrieves one trigger's definition, firing-rule state, recent checks, and recent fires to explain why it did or did not fire.
Details of one trigger: its definition, the state of its firing rules (waiting, cooling down, ...), recent checks and recent fires. Use it to explain why a trigger did or did not fire.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trigger_id | Yes | The trigger id, as shown by trigger_list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the composition of the response (definition, firing-rule state, recent checks, recent fires), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists. It stops short of noting behavior for an unknown/invalid trigger_id or any limits on 'recent'.
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 tightly written sentences with the returned content front-loaded and the purpose second. The parenthetical examples ('waiting, cooling down, ...') clarify the state concept in a few words with no filler.
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 read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what the agent gets back and why it would call it. The only gaps are edge behavior (invalid id, empty trigger) and how far back 'recent' extends, which are minor for this 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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself telling the agent the id comes from trigger_list. The description adds no format, example, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Details of one trigger') and enumerates what the detail comprises: definition, firing-rule state (waiting, cooling down), recent checks, recent fires. The singular 'one trigger' plus the schema's reference to trigger_list makes it distinguishable from the list/history siblings without opening either schema.
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?
Gives an explicit diagnostic use case: 'Use it to explain why a trigger did or did not fire.' That is a clear when-to-use signal, but it names no alternatives or exclusions — e.g. when to prefer trigger_history for raw events or trigger_list for discovery — leaving sibling routing partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.