Your saved searches and their newest hits. Free. Same as GET /v1/alerts.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_alerts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is 'Free' and maps to a GET endpoint, which implies read-only semantics, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the primary outcome and followed by cost and endpoint equivalence. No sentence is wasted, though the extreme terseness contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is too sparse: it omits authentication expectations, pagination, and how this list relates to sibling alert tools.
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?
The tool has one parameter (api_key) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. No guidance is provided on whether an API key is needed, optional, or inherited from context.
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 conveys the resource ('saved searches') and what it returns ('their newest hits'), so the core purpose is inferable. However, it lacks a clear verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_alert, tracker_alerts, or run_alert, leaving some ambiguity.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions. 'Free' and 'Same as GET /v1/alerts' provide context but not actionable usage guidance relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.