get_environmentFetch a specific environment by UUID or slug to review its configuration and support Rootly incident management workflows.
Retrieves a specific environment by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the environment (fills `{id}` in /v1/environments/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `environment_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 safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if the id is unknown, whether partial or archived environments are returned, or any other behavioral trait beyond the annotation set.
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. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the sibling landscape.
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 carry the safety profile. What is still missing is the routing context (how to obtain the id, when list_environments is the better call), which matters in a catalog this dense.
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 documents both UUID and slug forms plus the `{id}` path substitution. The description's "by id" merely repeats what the schema already establishes, 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 environment by id"), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as list_environments, create_environment, or update_environment, so an agent must infer the difference from the names alone.
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 versus list_environments (to find an id) or update_environment, and no mention of prerequisites or failure conditions. The only usage hint -- that the argument is `id`, not `environment_id` -- lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.