Retrieve detailed information for a Cloud Insight event rule group using its product key and rule group ID, so you can inspect configuration and settings.
Get detailed information about a specific Cloud Insight event rule group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prodKey | Yes | Product key (cw_key) the rule group belongs to | |
| ruleGroupId | Yes | Rule group (Event Rule) ID to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / prodKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Product key (cw_key) the rule group belongs to",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / ruleGroupId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Rule group ID to retrieve details for"New value: +"Rule group (Event Rule) ID to retrieve"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "ruleGroupId"
-]New value: +[
+ "prodKey",
+ "ruleGroupId"
+]v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as authentication requirements, error behavior, or what 'detailed' includes.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient to select and invoke it. It could be more complete by indicating what details are returned, but no output schema exists to contradict this.
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%, and both required parameters (prodKey and ruleGroupId) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'specific rule group' and no extra semantic detail.
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 detailed information about a specific Cloud Insight event rule group.' The word 'specific' semantically distinguishes it from the plural list_rule_groups, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as list_rule_groups, update_rule_group, or delete_rule_group_by_id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.