list_incidentsList incidents (outages) in a project - open and resolved, with timestamps and duration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (default 25) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous call | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (from list_projects) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows | |
| pagination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that both open and resolved incidents are returned and that timestamps and duration are included, which is useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.
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 redundant wording. Every phrase earns its place by clarifying scope and output content.
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 list operation with good annotations, an output schema, and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, and included data without unnecessary elaboration.
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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description only adds minimal contextual meaning ('in a project') beyond the schema, not detailed parameter-level 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List incidents') and clearly defines scope ('in a project') and content ('open and resolved, with timestamps and duration'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_incident (singular) and list_monitors.
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?
The description gives clear context: use the tool to list incidents within a project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined and no conflicting guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.