Retrieve detailed information about a specific DiagnosticSource, including its associated datapoints, to analyze monitoring configurations and metrics.
Get details about a specific DiagnosticSource including datapoints
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | DiagnosticSource 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'including datapoints' detail, which is useful return-content context, but does not disclose response structure, permissions, or potential size. Since annotations carry the main behavioral burden, this is acceptable.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, resource, and a key detail (datapoints) efficiently.
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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions 'details' and 'datapoints' but does not specify what fields are returned or whether datapoints are time-series data. More specificity would improve completeness, but the basic purpose is clear.
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 schema provides 100% description coverage for source_id ('DiagnosticSource ID'), so the parameter is self-documenting. The description does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('DiagnosticSource'), and scope ('specific') while adding that datapoints are included. This clearly distinguishes it from the plural get_diagnosticsources (list) and from get_datasource (different resource), even without naming alternatives.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_diagnosticsources or execute_diagnostic. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameter alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.