Retrieve detailed configuration and filter rules for a specific signal by ID. Use it to inspect how a Seq signal is defined before searching logs or building queries.
Get detailed configuration and filter rules of a specific signal by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signalId | Yes | The ID of the signal to inspect (e.g., 'signal-123'). | |
| workspace | No | Optional workspace identifier. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the definition never confirms it is non-mutating, says nothing about permissions, workspace scoping behavior when the optional field is omitted, or what happens for an unknown ID.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it is the only content and thus leaves no room for guidance.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It would benefit from stating the read-only nature and whether the workspace parameter filters or overrides context.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format, default, or scoping detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed configuration and filter rules of a specific signal'), which clearly distinguishes it from the list/search siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a signalId must first come from seq_list_signals or seq_search), and no exclusions. The 'by ID' phrasing weakly implies you need an ID, but nothing routes the agent between this and its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.