Retrieve detailed configuration and metadata for a specific datasource by its ID, enabling quick inspection of monitoring data sources.
Get details about a specific datasource
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datasource_id | Yes | Datasource 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'details'—it does not mention return shape, scoping, permissions, or limitations.
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 wasted words. It could be slightly more specific, but it is concise and front-loaded.
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 one-parameter read-only getter with strong annotations, this is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what 'details' will contain or how this tool differs from similar datasource-related getters.
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 description coverage is 100%, with datasource_id clearly documented as an integer. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('datasource'), and 'specific' signals this is a single-item fetch rather than a list. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_datasources, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternatives such as get_datasources or get_device_datasources. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'specific' and the singular name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.