get_functionalityRetrieve a specific Rootly functionality by UUID or slug to inspect its details for incident and metadata management from your IDE.
Retrieves a specific functionality by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the functionality (fills `{id}` in /v1/functionalities/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `functionality_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 elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no note on failure behavior for unknown or archived functionalities, nor on whether slug lookups resolve differently from UUID lookups.
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 repetition. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than tight communication.
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?
With one required parameter fully documented in the schema and an output schema available for return values, the minimum an agent needs to call it correctly is present. Still, for a lookup tool the description could have added selection context against list_functionalities or get_functionality_* siblings.
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 that the single `id` argument accepts a UUID or a slug pattern, plus the misleading-argument caveat. The description only restates "by id", so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.
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 functionality") scoped to a single record by id, which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_functionalities or update_functionality, but the singular fetch semantics are clear from the name and phrasing.
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_functionalities or the chart siblings (get_functionality_incidents_chart, get_functionality_uptime_chart). Nor does it state prerequisites, or what happens if the id does not exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.