get_sub_statusRetrieve a specific Rootly sub-status by UUID or slug to identify incident sub-status details for incident management workflows.
Retrieves a specific Sub-Status by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the sub status (fills `{id}` in /v1/sub_statuses/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `sub_status_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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for unknown ids, no mention that the resource is account-scoped despite openWorldHint, and no retrieval characteristics.
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 short sentence with no filler and the key noun front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure tightness.
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 output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What is missing is the usage context — how this differs from list_sub_statuses and get_incident_sub_status — leaving the definition minimally viable rather than 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?
With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the UUID/slug duality and even warns that the argument is `id`, not `sub_status_id`. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that baseline, so 3 is appropriate.
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 Sub-Status by id'), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as list_sub_statuses, get_incident_sub_status, or update_sub_status, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_sub_statuses (bulk listing) or get_incident_sub_status (fetching a sub-status attached to an incident). The description gives no preconditions, no exclusions, and no alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.