get_alert_eventRetrieves a specific alert event by its ID so you can inspect Rootly alert details and incident context.
Retrieves a specific alert_event by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the alert event (fills `{id}` in /v1/alert_events/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `alert_event_id` argument. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as error behavior or return characteristics, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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 with no wasted words. It communicates the essential action and lookup key immediately.
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?
Given the simple get-by-id operation, rich annotations, complete schema, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. A minor gap is the absence of any note about not-found behavior, but that is not essential for correct invocation.
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% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the note about not using alert_event_id. The description adds only the phrase 'by id', so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (Retrieves) and resource (alert_event) with the lookup key (by id). It does not differentiate from siblings like list_alert_events or get_alert, but the core 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?
The phrase 'by id' implies this is the tool to use when you already have a specific alert event ID, distinguishing it implicitly from list_alert_events. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.