get_alert_groupRetrieve a specific alert group by UUID or slug to inspect its details and metadata from Rootly.
Retrieves a specific alert group by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the alert group (fills `{id}` in /v1/alert_groups/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `alert_group_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 only the retrieval-by-id scope and does not contradict annotations, but it provides no additional behavioral context such as error behavior or lookup semantics.
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 filler. Every word contributes to the stated purpose.
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 simple get-by-id tool with rich schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention not-found behavior or lookup semantics, but the structured fields carry most of the burden.
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 schema itself explains that id accepts a UUID or slug and clarifies there is no alert_group_id argument. The description adds no parameter detail beyond 'by id', so the 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 group) with a clear scope (by id). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_alert_groups 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 the tool is used when an id is known, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_alert_groups, get_alert, or update_alert_group. No alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.