get_alerts_sourceRetrieves a specific alert source by its ID so you can inspect its details and configuration in Rootly.
Retrieves a specific alert source by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the alert source (fills `{id}` in /v1/alert_sources/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `alert_source_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 nothing beyond that — no note on whether a missing id errors, whether the response is cached, or any rate/scope caveats — so it does not earn credit above a minimal score.
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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than polished conciseness.
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 a simple single-parameter read with full schema coverage, complete annotations and an output schema, so most burdens are carried elsewhere. Given how low-risk and simple it is the description is adequate, but it offers no behavioral detail about failure modes for an invalid id.
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 does the real work, including the explicit warning that the argument is `id` and not `alert_source_id`. The description only restates "by id" and contributes no additional semantics, so the 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 and resource ("Retrieves a specific alert source by id"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_alerts_sources, create_alerts_source and update_alerts_source operations. It stops short of naming a sibling or describing what an alert source is, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_alerts_sources or the other alert-source siblings, and no prerequisites or post-conditions are mentioned. The single sentence implies a lookup use case but leaves the choice between siblings to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.