get_pulseFetches a pulse by ID to retrieve its details for incident management and review.
Retrieves a specific pulse by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the pulse (fills `{id}` in /v1/pulses/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `pulse_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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a read-only retrieval operation. The description adds little beyond that, such as error behavior or permission requirements, so the annotations carry most of the behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-id tool.
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?
This is a simple retrieval tool with a fully described ID parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It is nearly complete, with the main gap being no routing guidance relative to list_pulses or other pulse tools.
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, including its path usage and a warning that there is no pulse_id argument. The description only says 'by id' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clear verb and resource: retrieves a specific pulse by id. It implicitly distinguishes the tool from list/create/update siblings by saying 'specific' and 'by id,' though it does not explicitly name or contrast 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 caller already has a pulse ID, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_pulses or how to obtain an ID, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.