alert_get_by_idFetch a specific LibreNMS alert by ID to inspect its details, status, and associated information.
Get a specific alert from LibreNMS by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alert_id | Yes | The ID of the alert to retrieve. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only product context ('from LibreNMS') and retrieval semantics, with no additional behavioral details such as not-found behavior or permissions. This is acceptable for a simple read operation.
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 communicates the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema present. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly; no important operational detail is missing at this level of 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?
The schema already documents alert_id with a description and 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' simply restates the parameter concept without adding format details, minimum semantics, or any meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a specific alert'), and the retrieval criterion ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools like alerts_get and from alert_rule_get, which targets rules rather than alerts.
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 the tool is for retrieving one alert when the caller already knows its ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alerts_get or mention any exclusions. The usage context is clear enough by implication, but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.