alert_template_getFetch a particular alert template from LibreNMS using its ID. Pass the template_id to return the template's configuration for review or integration.
Get a specific alert template from LibreNMS by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | Alert template ID |
| 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, which fully cover the safety profile. The description's 'Get' phrasing aligns with these annotations, and the presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. No additional behavioral disclosure is needed.
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, concise sentence that contains only essential information: the action, the resource, and the selection criterion. No filler or redundancy.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with a complete input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation. Nothing important 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 description coverage is 100%: template_id is documented with type, minimum, and a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('specific alert template from LibreNMS'), and the access method ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from list- and mutation-oriented sibling tools like alert_templates_list, alert_template_create, and alert_template_edit.
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 known template by ID, which is enough for a simple getter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as alert_templates_list for listing all templates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.