get_serviceRetrieves a specific Rootly service by UUID or slug so you can inspect its details from your IDE.
Retrieves a specific service by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the service (fills `{id}` in /v1/services/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `service_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 fully covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of 404/not-found behavior, permission requirements, or what is returned, which is where a short description could still have earned credit.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately terse for a one-parameter read, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than economical precision.
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?
The tool is simple (1 required param, output schema present, annotations covering safety), so the description needn't explain return values. Still, it leaves entirely unaddressed the slug-vs-uuid dual input path and error behavior, both of which an agent would benefit from seeing surfaced at the description level.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself carries the useful detail (UUID or slug accepted, and the explicit note that the argument is `id` not `service_id`). The description only says 'by id' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource: retrieves a specific service by id. Clear what it does, but gives no differentiation from the many neighboring get_* tools (e.g., get_service_uptime_chart, get_catalog) or its list_services counterpart; the agent must infer 'single resource fetch by identifier' from name conventions alone.
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 guidance on when to use this versus list_services or the chart endpoints, and no prerequisites or error conditions (e.g., what happens on an unknown id). The 'by id' phrasing implies single-resource lookup but the description never routes the agent to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.