Skip to main content
Glama

list_alert_rules

List user-configurable alert rules for a site.

Requires: API key with read scope.

Args: slug: Site identifier

Returns: [{"id": "uuid", "metric": "disk", "operator": "gt", "threshold": 90, "severity": "warning", "enabled": true, "cooldown_minutes": 30, "notify_email": true}]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "list_alert_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the auth requirement (read scope) and shows the return structure, implying a safe read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or mention any side effects, rate limits, or pagination.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, requirements, args, and returns. The return example is informative and not excessive. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a full picture: what it does, the auth requirement, the parameter meaning, and a sample output. It covers all essential aspects needed for an agent to invoke and interpret results without missing critical details.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema provides only the parameter name 'slug' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining slug as 'Site identifier' and includes a concrete return example that demonstrates its usage, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('user-configurable alert rules') for a site, which is clear and distinguishes this from siblings like create_alert_rule and delete_alert_rule. It tells exactly what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by naming the list operation and specifying an auth requirement (read scope), but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives or provide exclusion conditions. It lacks guidance like 'To modify rules, use create_alert_rule.'

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.