get_workflow_groupRetrieves a specific workflow group by ID so you can inspect its configuration and details in Rootly.
Retrieves a specific workflow group by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the workflow group (fills `{id}` in /v1/workflow_groups/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `workflow_group_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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – no not-found behavior, no note on what the openWorld lookup implies, no response 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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently structured, though its terseness pushes the missing differentiation and behavioral detail onto other dimensions.
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?
For a simple read-only, single-parameter getter with a full schema and an output schema, this is minimally adequate: an agent knows what it does and what to pass. It stops short of stating the retrieval failure mode or how it relates to list_workflow_groups, which is the main remaining gap.
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 single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a useful disambiguation about the argument name. The description's 'by id' merely echoes 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 clear verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('workflow group') with the scoping qualifier 'by id', which distinguishes it from list_workflow_groups. It never names the sibling alternatives (list/create/update_workflow_group), so differentiation is only implicit.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent must infer from the name that this is the single-item lookup counterpart to list_workflow_groups, and there is no mention of what to do if the id is unknown or of any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.