Retrieve Cloud Insight event rules for specified monitoring target group IDs using the product key and group IDs. Use it to identify alert rules tied to specific monitor groups.
Get Cloud Insight event rules associated with specific monitoring target group IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prodKey | Yes | Product key (cw_key) | |
| monitorGroupIds | Yes | Monitor group IDs to query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / monitorGroupIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Array of monitor group IDs to query"New value: +"Monitor group IDs to query"Input schema / properties / monitorGroupIds / minItemsAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / prodKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Product key (cw_key)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "monitorGroupIds"
-]New value: +[
+ "prodKey",
+ "monitorGroupIds"
+]v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that. It adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result size, or whether the query spans all rules of the group, so with annotations carrying the safety profile this sits at minimum viable.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it conveys no more than the tool name already implies.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not indicate what a returned rule contains or how the underlying product key is obtained, both of which an agent may need.
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 both prodKey and monitorGroupIds documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the prodKey (cw_key) requirement or whether multiple group IDs are queried with OR semantics.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: fetching Cloud Insight event rules scoped to monitoring target group IDs. This distinguishes it in kind from write siblings, but it never names ncloud_get_rules_by_metrics_group, the near-identical sibling for metrics groups, leaving that pairing unresolved from the name alone.
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 guidance on when this should be used versus ncloud_get_rules_by_metrics_group, ncloud_get_monitor_group, or ncloud_list_rule_groups. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.