Retrieve detailed information about a specific LogicMonitor batch job by its ID. Use this tool to inspect batch job status, configuration, and execution details for monitoring and troubleshooting.
Get details about a specific batch job
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batchjob_id | Yes | Batch job ID |
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, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the generic read operation, such as return shape or error behavior. With annotations present the bar is lower, but no value is added beyond what the annotations already establish.
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, short sentence with no filler. 'Get details about a specific batch job' is immediately actionable and the core distinction (specific vs. all) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter lookup with annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the definition is largely complete. The only notable gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not elaborate on what 'details' are returned. This is a minor omission for a straightforward get-by-id tool but prevents a perfect score.
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 single parameter batchjob_id is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage and description 'Batch job ID'. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how the ID is used, what format it expects, or what details are returned. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the explanatory burden.
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: 'Get details about a specific batch job.' The singular 'specific batch job' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_batchjobs, which list all batch jobs. The required batchjob_id parameter reinforces this single-item scope.
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 description implies this tool is for one specific batch job, and the name get_batchjob contrasts with get_batchjobs and get_device_batchjobs. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over those alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisite guidance. Usage context is left to inference from tool naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.