get_on_call_shadowRetrieve a specific on-call shadow configuration by ID to inspect coverage settings and verify shadow assignments.
Retrieves a specific On Call Shadow configuration by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the on call shadow (fills `{id}` in /v1/on_call_shadows/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `on_call_shadow_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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond confirming a specific retrieval by ID, but it does not contradict the annotations or omit critical behavior for a simple read tool.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. The key action and lookup key are stated immediately.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter read operation, complete schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. A brief note about how to obtain the ID would make it fully complete.
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 single id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that lookup is by ID but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 description states a specific verb and resource: retrieves a specific On Call Shadow configuration by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from list/create/update siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when the On Call Shadow ID is already known. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_on_call_shadows or how to obtain the ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.