Retrieve a full incident as markdown with timeline, attributes, assignees, and update intents. Get complete incident context for triage and follow-up actions.
Full incident as markdown (timeline, attributes, assignees) plus the intents update_incident can record on it now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incident_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by revealing the output format (markdown), the included sections, and the dynamic presence of update_incident intents, which is useful behavioral context not visible in 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the resource and output form, then adds the relevant update_incident context.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description explains the return contents and links to update_incident behavior. It does not state when to use this instead of list_incidents or how to get incident_id, but annotations cover the safety profile and no output schema exists to compensate.
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 0%, and the description does not explain incident_id beyond what is inferable from the parameter name. There is no guidance on where the ID comes from, its format, or how it relates to list_incidents or create_incident.
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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieving an incident in full markdown form. It lists the contents (timeline, attributes, assignees) and references update_incident, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_incidents.
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 use when full incident detail is needed and hints that this output is relevant before calling update_incident. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for lighter or different use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.