Retrieve complete details for a specific LogicMonitor alert by ID, including the full alert message body when needed, to diagnose monitoring issues.
Get detailed information about a specific alert
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alert_id | Yes | Alert ID (with or without LMA prefix) | |
| include_message | No | Include the full alert message body (needMessage) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what 'detailed information' includes, whether additional API calls are triggered, or any permission requirements.
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, efficient sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for the simple purpose it conveys, though it is also somewhat thin in content.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'detailed information' actually returns, but it does not. It also does not mention how include_message alters the response or when a caller should set it. The description is minimally adequate for a read-only lookup but leaves meaningful ambiguity.
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?
The input schema fully documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the LMA prefix note for alert_id and the needMessage meaning for include_message. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already handles this responsibility.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('alert'), and scope ('specific alert'), making it distinguishable from list-style siblings like get_alerts and mutation siblings like acknowledge_alert. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the specificity of 'a specific alert' is enough to convey its singular focus.
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 intended use is implied: call this when you need detailed information about one alert. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_alerts or other alert-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.