get_form_setRetrieves a specific form set by UUID or slug, letting you inspect its configuration and details in Rootly.
Retrieves a specific form_set by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the form set (fills `{id}` in /v1/form_sets/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `form_set_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 the name: no mention of error behavior for missing IDs, permission needs, or whether the response includes related conditions/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?
A single clean sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true 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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and side effects need no elaboration. Still, for a tool in a dense family of form_set and form_* siblings, the description leaves the agent without routing context.
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 itself explains the uuid-or-slug anyOf and even warns there is no `form_set_id` argument. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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 and resource ('Retrieves a specific form_set by id'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as list_form_sets, get_form_set_condition, or update_form_set.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_form_sets or get_form_set_condition. The agent must infer that this is a single-resource lookup from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.