Skip to main content
Glama
Rootly MCP server

Rootly MCP server

Official
by rootlyhq

Get Incident Form Field Selection

get_incident_form_field_selection
Read-only

Retrieves a specific incident form field selection by its ID, letting you inspect the selected form field details for an incident.

Instructions

Retrieves a specific incident form field selection by id

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRequired. ID of the incident form field selection (fills `{id}` in /v1/incident_form_field_selections/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `incident_form_field_selection_id` argument.
includeNoRelated resources to include (empty for minimal payload)
fields_incidentsNoComma-separated list of incident fields to include (reduces payload size)id,title,summary,status,severity,created_at,updated_at,url,started_at

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as how include expansions work or what happens if the id is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but minimal to the point of leaving important routing and behavioral details unstated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description does not clarify when to choose this tool over list_incident_form_field_selections or discuss the include/fields_incidents expansions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the id, include, and fields_incidents parameters. The description only says 'by id' and adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a retrieval verb and resource, but it nearly restates the tool name and title with only the addition of 'by id'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling operations such as list_incident_form_field_selections or update_incident_form_field_selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 tool versus listing incident form field selections or updating one. Usage is only implied by the generic 'get by id' pattern.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools