resolve_outageResolve an incident declared by hand or a server incident, and send the recovery to the channels it paged. An outage detected on a monitor resolves itself when its checks pass again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Outage UUID from list_outages. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool sends recovery notifications to the channels that were paged, and that monitor-detected outages auto-resolve. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and key side effect are front-loaded, and the caveat about monitor-detected outages is stated succinctly.
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 single-parameter resolution tool, the description covers the action, the applicable incident types, the notification side effect, and an important auto-resolution edge case. With supportive annotations and a simple schema, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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%, and the uuid parameter is already documented as 'Outage UUID from list_outages.' The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Resolve') and identifies exactly what is resolved: incidents declared by hand or server incidents. It also distinguishes itself by noting the recovery notification behavior and the self-resolving nature of monitor-detected outages, which separates it from sibling actions like acknowledge_outage or escalate_outage.
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 clearly indicates when this tool applies (hand-declared or server incidents) and provides an implicit when-not by stating monitor-detected outages resolve themselves. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.
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.