Retrieve a notification channel by ID to inspect its delivery health and routing triggers, with secrets masked and webhook URLs truncated for safe review.
Get a single notification channel by ID, with its delivery health and the triggers routing to it. Header values are masked as *** and Slack, Discord and Teams webhook URLs are cut after the host; the secret is never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Channel ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses non-obvious redaction behavior: header values are masked as ***, Slack/Discord/Teams webhook URLs are truncated after the host, and the secret is never returned. This is exactly the kind of data-exposure context an agent needs before quoting the output.
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 sentences, both front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts (identity lookup first, masking second). No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what is returned (health, triggers) and what is withheld (secrets, masked headers, truncated URLs). For a single-record read tool with one parameter, nothing material is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is described as 'Channel ID'. The description only echoes 'by ID' and adds no format or acquisition guidance (e.g., that the ID comes from list_channels), so the baseline 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?
Specific verb and resource ('Get a single notification channel by ID') plus the return contents (delivery health, routing triggers). The 'single ... by ID' phrasing cleanly separates it from the sibling list_channels without needing to name it.
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 requirement of an id implies this is a follow-up call after list_channels, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given and no alternative is named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.