get_catalog_propertyRetrieves a specific catalog property by its ID from Rootly, returning the catalog_properties record so you can inspect and manage incident metadata.
Retrieves a specific Catalog Property by id - returns catalog_properties type
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the catalog property (fills `{id}` in /v1/catalog_properties/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `catalog_property_id` argument. |
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 a terse return-type note ('returns catalog_properties type') and says nothing about behavior on a missing id or any auth/scoping requirements.
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 short front-loaded sentence with the action and lookup key first; nothing is padded. The trailing 'returns catalog_properties type' is slightly jargon-y and less informative than a plain statement of what comes back, but it is not wasteful enough to drop below 4.
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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials, but with no output schema the phrase 'returns catalog_properties type' leaves the agent guessing at the response shape and at not-found behavior. Adequate, not complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is documented in detail, including the explicit negative hint that there is no `catalog_property_id` argument. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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?
The description names a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('Catalog Property') qualified by lookup key ('by id'), which is enough to separate it from list_catalog_properties and from the entity-scoped get_catalog_entity_property. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to disambiguate against, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
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?
'Retrieves a specific Catalog Property by id' implies the use case (single-item lookup when you already hold an id) but never states when to prefer it over list_catalog_properties or search paths. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.