Skip to main content
Glama
yunusemregul

dynatrace-bridge-mcp

by yunusemregul

get_problem

Fetch one Dynatrace problem by display or internal ID to review its status, severity, root cause entities, impact, Davis findings, and affected requests.

Instructions

Returns one Dynatrace problem. The default output is a compact overview: status, severity, start, end and duration; root cause entity, affected and impacted entities; the evidence grouped by entity with counts and the most relevant items; the impact; the Davis root-cause findings per candidate entity with the metric and event names; the event that triggered the problem with its baseline values; the most affected requests per service with their SERVICE_METHOD ids; and the entities on the dependency path Davis analysed that are affected, root cause or have events.

Pass problem as the display id (P-12345) or the internal problem id from list_problems. For the long form of one section pass detail: evidence (every evidence row), impact, davis (all candidates and findings), requests (the affected requests of every service) or path (the whole dependency path with event times). The Davis findings, trigger event and dependency path come from internal Dynatrace endpoints; if one of them is unavailable the rest is still returned with a note.

The result ends with the affected service id and the problem window to pass to analyze_failures and list_traces.

This tool runs through the Dynatrace Bridge browser extension in the user's logged-in browser. If it fails, report the error to the user; do not try to open browser tabs or use browser automation instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of rows of the section chosen with `detail` to print. Default 100, at most 300. The output says how many were omitted.
detailNoPrint the long form of this one section instead of the compact overview: evidence, impact, davis, requests or path.
problemYesProblem display id (P-12345, or just 12345) or the internal problem id (e.g. -1234567890123456789_1790000000000V2).
environmentNoWhich Dynatrace environment to query, as named in the Dynatrace Bridge extension popup. Omit it for the default, the first environment configured there. The names are not listed here because the extension had not connected yet when this description was built; `dynatrace_bridge_status` lists them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the default vs `detail` output modes, that Davis/trigger/path sections come from internal endpoints and degrade gracefully with a note, and the browser-extension runtime with explicit failure-handling guidance. The only gap is the absence of auth/permission notes, but the coverage is otherwise rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Led by the core purpose, then parameters, then operational caveats – well front-loaded. The middle sentence is dense and long but every clause conveys distinct return-content semantics, so it earns its place despite the length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values and it does so exhaustively: default overview fields, long-form `detail` sections, fallback behavior on unavailable endpoints, and the trailing hand-off fields. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it explains the two accepted `problem` id formats, spells out what each `detail` enum section contains at length, and links the returned service id/window to downstream tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns one Dynatrace problem.' It then enumerates the exact contents of the default output (status, severity, entities, Davis findings, etc.), which makes it clearly distinguishable from the sibling `list_problems` (singular retrieval vs listing).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tells the agent where the `problem` argument comes from ('the internal problem id from `list_problems`') and where the output feeds ('to pass to `analyze_failures` and `list_traces`'). It gives clear usage context but stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that rule (e.g. versus list_problems).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.