get_alert_urgencyRetrieves a specific alert urgency by its ID so you can inspect urgency details and use them in incident management workflows.
Retrieves a specific alert urgency by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the alert urgency (fills `{id}` in /v1/alert_urgencies/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `alert_urgency_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 fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — no note on behavior when the id is unknown (e.g. 404/empty result), no indication that the urgency may be shared across alerts, no extra context whatsoever.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being maximally informative per word.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a get-by-id tool the description could usefully mention the failure mode for a missing id and point at list_alert_urgencies for discovery; as-is it is minimally adequate.
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 documented in detail in the schema (path substitution, naming caveat). The description's 'by id' only restates that, 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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific alert urgency') scoped by id, so the agent can distinguish it from list_alert_urgencies at a glance. It does not name the sibling alternatives explicitly, keeping 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?
Usage is only implied: 'a specific ... by id' suggests fetching one known record rather than listing, but the description never says when to prefer this over list_alert_urgencies or where to obtain the id. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.