get_incident_action_itemsRetrieves a specific incident action item by its ID so you can inspect follow-up tasks tied to an incident.
Retrieves a specific incident_action_item by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the action item (fills `{id}` in /v1/action_items/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `action_item_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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what happens when the id doesn't exist, no note on whether the response includes incident context, no permission 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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the retrieval key is front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity borders on under-specification.
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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What's missing is the surrounding context an agent needs: how this relates to the list/update action-item siblings and what identifying an item by bare id implies.
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 carries a useful disambiguation note ('this tool has no `action_item_id` argument'). The description contributes no parameter detail beyond 'by id', so baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'incident_action_item by id' are present, so the basic action is clear. But the tool name is plural (get_incident_action_items) while the description says it returns 'a specific' item, and nothing distinguishes it from sibling list_incident_action_items or list_all_incident_action_items. An agent must infer that this is the single-record getter.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With three action-item tools in the sibling set (list, list_all, get, plus update_incident_action_item), the description gives no signal about when to pick this one over the listers or the updater.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.