get_escalation_levelRetrieve a specific escalation level by its ID to identify the correct on-call escalation tier for an incident.
Retrieves a specific escalation level by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the escalation level (fills `{id}` in /v1/escalation_levels/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `escalation_level_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 no behavioral context of its own — nothing about what happens when the id is unknown, whether the response is cached, or any access constraints — so it contributes essentially nothing beyond the structured fields.
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?
It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which suits a trivial getter. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any differentiating or routing information.
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 need not be explained, and the sole parameter is fully described in the schema; annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance among the many escalation-related siblings, which leaves the definition minimally viable rather than 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 thoroughly documented there, including the path template and the explicit note about the argument name. The description's "by id" adds no information beyond that, 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 states a verb ("Retrieves") and a resource ("escalation level") scoped to a single record by id, so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it largely restates the name/title and does nothing to distinguish it from nearby siblings such as list_escalation_levels, get_escalation_policy, or update_escalation_level.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_escalation_levels (all levels) or get_escalation_policy (parent object). The word "specific" hints at single-record retrieval, but the agent must infer that routing decision entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.