Retrieve an incident's details, comments, related detections, and affected devices in one call to assemble complete context for faster triage.
One call → incident + comments + related detections + affected devices. Detections and devices are capped at 10 each to stay within rate limits; the response carries a 'truncated' flag if more exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incidentUuid | Yes | UUID of the incident. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: a hard cap of 10 detections and 10 devices, the rate-limit rationale, and the existence of a 'truncated' flag in the response — exactly the kind of context an agent needs to interpret partial results. It stops short of describing ordering or what happens on an invalid UUID.
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, zero filler, and the most important fact — what the single call returns — is front-loaded before the capping caveat. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so adequately by enumerating the four payload components and the truncated flag. It is slightly thin on the composite's internal structure and error behavior, but complete enough to call correctly.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents incidentUuid as the incident UUID. The description adds no further meaning about its format or provenance, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 aggregate operation — incident plus comments, related detections, and affected devices — in a single call, which is clearly distinguishable from the granular siblings like incident_incidents__get_incident or incident_incident_comments__list_incident_comments. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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 'One call →' framing implies this is the tool to pick when an agent needs a bundled view of an incident rather than piecemeal calls. However, it never states when NOT to use it (e.g., when only the incident record itself is needed, use incident_incidents__get_incident), nor does it mention prerequisites such as the UUID needing to come from list_incidents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.