Rootly MCP server

Official

by rootlyhq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Get Incident Retrospective Step

get_incident_retrospective_step

Read-only

Retrieve a specific incident retrospective step by ID, optionally including related resources and selected incident fields. Use it to inspect retrospective step details from Rootly.

Instructions

Retrieves a specific incident retrospective step by id

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Required. ID of the incident retrospective step (fills `{id}` in /v1/incident_retrospective_steps/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `incident_retrospective_step_id` argument.
`include`	No	Related resources to include (empty for minimal payload)
`fields_incidents`	No	Comma-separated list of incident fields to include (reduces payload size)	id,title,summary,status,severity,created_at,updated_at,url,started_at

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.4.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as auth requirements, rate limits, or how include/fields affect payload shape.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The core action and target resource are immediately clear.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema and rich annotations exist, and all parameters are documented in the schema, so the description is nearly complete for a simple getter. It could still say more about when to use this versus other retrospective-step siblings.

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 already fully documents id, include, and fields_incidents. The description only reinforces that retrieval is by id and adds no syntax or usage detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieves an incident retrospective step by id. It is clear about the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling get_retrospective_step.

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?

The description implies usage when the caller has a step id, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative tools such as get_retrospective_step or get_incident_retrospective.

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

Deploy Server