IncidentVault's operational MCP endpoint gives an assistant an incident dashboard, record review, follow-up creation, task edits and incident intake. It returns IDs, status, priority, dates and location IDs only; names, narratives, medical details and attachments are excluded. Write scopes are opt-in and role and location limits apply on every call.
Scored across 8 tools
Most tools target distinct operational needs, but search, find_records, fetch, and review_record all involve retrieving records/sources and have boundaries that require careful reading. Descriptions do clarify the differences between citation search, filtered listing, single-source fetch, and detailed record review.
The tool names use mixed conventions: verb_noun (check_action, find_records, review_record), bare verbs (fetch, search), and noun/prefixed-noun forms (record_fields, workspace_profile, incidentvault_dashboard). They remain readable and descriptive, but there is no predictable single pattern.
Eight tools is well-scoped for an incident/claims/task/inspection operational assistant. Each tool appears to serve a distinct workflow such as searching, reviewing, checking approvals, discovering editable fields, or viewing dashboard status.
The surface covers read/search/review and some approval-status workflows, but there are no explicit create, update, edit, or delete operations for incidents, claims, tasks, or inspections. record_fields mentions discovering options before editing, which highlights the missing write/edit tool as a notable gap.
Check this connection's saved action or approval outcome. Pending is not success; failed can mean an uncertain write. Does not expose saved arguments, narrative results or another connection's requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds substantive behavioral context: pending is not success, failed can indicate an uncertain write, and the tool deliberately does not expose saved arguments, narrative results, or cross-connection requests. These are meaningful operational and privacy traits that an agent could not infer from structured fields alone.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by status-interpretation caveats and exposure boundaries. Each sentence adds distinct value and there is no redundant or filler language.
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 one-parameter status-check tool with no output schema, the description covers important behavioral warnings and privacy boundaries, but it omits the meaning of the required 'id' parameter and does not describe what a successful return looks like. It is adequate but incomplete 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?
The sole parameter 'id' has zero schema description coverage and the description never clarifies whether it refers to an action ID, approval ID, or something else. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the identifier, but it does not.
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 ('Check') and names the resource precisely: this connection's saved action or approval outcome. It clearly scopes to the current connection and excludes another connection's requests, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.
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 phrase 'Check this connection's saved action or approval outcome' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like review_record or fetch. The note that pending/failed statuses need careful interpretation adds useful context but does not constitute alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch one accessible operational source previously returned by search, by its module:id identifier. Returns a citation URL and operational facts only; does not expose private record content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine scope disclosure beyond that: what is returned (citation URL and operational facts) and, importantly, what is withheld (private record content).
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 tight sentences with the identifier form and data-scope caveat front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
With no output schema, the description does tell the agent what comes back at a high level, and annotations cover safety. It stops short of describing error or not-found behavior, or what "operational facts" concretely contains.
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 0%, so the description is the only prose explaining the single parameter. It does explain "module:id" and that the id must come from search, but the accepted module names and numeric-suffix rule live only in the schema pattern.
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?
States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (an operational source), plus the exact identifier form (module:id). It also distinguishes itself from the search path by requiring an id that search previously returned.
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 phrase "previously returned by search" implicitly tells the agent to call search first and use this only for known ids, which is useful routing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for other lookup needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find authorized incidents, claims, tasks or inspections by module, exact status, priority, location and page. Returns operational fields and source links, not narrative text or personal information. Use offset for more records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| module | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | Exact operational status. Use record_fields for writable values. | |
| overdue | No | Only loaded-page records past their deadline and not finalized. | |
| priority | No | ||
| locationId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides crucial behavioral details beyond the annotations and schema, specifically stating that it 'Returns operational fields and source links, not narrative text or personal information.' This informs the agent about data sanitization and output structure.
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?
The description is highly efficient. It is front-loaded with the main function, clearly lists the parameters, and quickly defines operational constraints like the exclusion of narrative text and the use of offset for iteration.
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?
Given the complexity of a filtered search tool and its very low schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what data is fetched, how large sets are handled, and what data is explicitly excluded, providing a full operational context for the agent.
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?
With schema coverage at only 29%, the description must compensate heavily. It successfully maps the natural language filtering needs (like 'exact status') to the specific parameters, greatly aiding the agent's ability to map user queries to valid arguments.
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 precisely defines the scope by listing the resource types found (incidents, claims, tasks, inspections) and the criteria used for finding them (module, status, priority, location, page). This leaves no ambiguity for the AI agent.
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 provides guidance on pagination ('Use offset for more records'). However, it does not offer explicit advice on when to use this tool over siblings (like 'search') or what conditions mandate its use. It is adequate but not strongly prescriptive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Review authorized IncidentVault incident, claim, audit and follow-up status in an interactive dashboard. Use for operational workload and overdue follow-ups, not medical records, narratives or financial transfers. Counts are loaded-page counts, not tenant totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| module | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | Exact operational status. Use record_fields for writable values. | |
| overdue | No | Only loaded-page records past their deadline and not finalized. | |
| priority | No | ||
| locationId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, the description adds useful context about authorization and the important caveat that counts reflect loaded pages rather than tenant totals. It does not contradict 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?
Three tightly written sentences: purpose first, usage and exclusions second, and a critical counting caveat last. There is no redundant or wasted text.
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?
The description is adequate for the dashboard's broad purpose and safety profile, especially with no output schema to explain. However, for a seven-parameter filtering tool, it leaves notable gaps around how filters combine and what the interactive dashboard returns.
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 only 29% across seven parameters, and the description does little to compensate. It hints at status and overdue filtering, but leaves module, priority, locationId, limit, and offset largely unexplained beyond enum/schema constraints.
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 states a specific verb and resource set: reviewing incident, claim, audit, and follow-up status in a dashboard. It clarifies the domain by excluding medical records, narratives, and financial transfers, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.
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?
It gives clear usage guidance: use for operational workload and overdue follow-ups, and avoid medical records, narratives, or financial transfers. It stops short of naming alternative tools for those excluded cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Discover the currently permitted operational status and priority options for a record module before editing it. Private fields and custom fields are not exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a scope limit the agent cannot otherwise know: 'Private fields and custom fields are not exposed,' which warns against treating the output as a complete field catalog. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned option sets.
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 tight sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded and the exclusion caveat second. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the name, title, or schema.
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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly and to set expectations about missing private/custom fields. The remaining gap is that it does not indicate what the response looks like (per-field option sets, labels vs. internal values), which an agent must discover by calling.
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 0%, but the single parameter is a self-explanatory enum of five record modules, which carries most of its own meaning. The description's phrase 'for a record module' loosely ties to it but adds no guidance on enum semantics or how module choice affects the returned options, so it neither compensates for nor worsens the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb ('discover') and a specific resource ('currently permitted operational status and priority options for a record module'), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like check_action or find_records, leaving some disambiguation to inference.
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 clause 'before editing it' supplies a clear usage moment, which is genuinely helpful context for sequencing. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, so an agent must infer that this is a pre-write lookup rather than a validation call (check_action) or a listing call (find_records).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Review an authorized record's operational status, deadline, priority and audit percentage, with a link to IncidentVault for sensitive details. Does not return names, attachments, answers or medical/legal narratives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| module | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful scope: authorization requirement, exact fields returned, IncidentVault link for sensitive details, and explicit exclusions (names, attachments, answers, medical/legal narratives). It could go further on error or authorization-failure behavior, but this is solid.
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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by return/exclusion details; no filler. Every clause adds useful scope.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes returned fields and exclusions. However, for a two-required-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, it omits module/id usage and enum meaning, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the required 'module' or 'id' parameters, nor the allowed module enum values. The agent gets no semantic help for either required input from the description.
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 names a specific verb ('Review') and resource ('authorized record's operational status, deadline, priority and audit percentage'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as fetch or record_fields, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; it does not tell the agent how this differs from fetch, find_records, record_fields, or incidentvault_dashboard. At best 'authorized record' implies permission context, but selection guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search accessible IncidentVault operational record sources for citations. Supported query syntax: module:incidents|claims|tasks|risk_checks|regulatory_inspections, id:123, status:open, priority:high, location:12, overdue. Also accepts common incident, claim, task, audit and inspection terms. Does not search private narratives or the public web.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful scope constraint that private narratives and the public web are excluded, reinforcing openWorld=false, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, 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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence, then dense syntax documentation, then a closing exclusion. Every sentence earns its place; only the trailing 'common incident, claim, task, audit and inspection terms' is slightly vague.
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 one-parameter search tool with a full annotation set, the description covers purpose, scope boundaries, and query grammar. It does not describe the shape of returned results or any result cap, but with no output schema and a citation-oriented framing that is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single 'query' parameter — and it does: it documents the module: filter with its five allowed values, id:, status:, priority:, location:, the bare 'overdue' token, and free-text term support. This is well beyond what the bare string schema provides.
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?
Specific verb+resource: searches 'accessible IncidentVault operational record sources for citations'. Scope is stated clearly enough to distinguish it from fetch (retrieve a known record) and check_action, though the overlap with find_records is not addressed.
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 implies when to use it by enumerating what is searchable and explicitly excluding private narratives and the public web. However, it never names an alternative sibling (find_records, fetch) or states the condition that selects one over the other, so routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Identify this authenticated IncidentVault connection using opaque account/workspace IDs. Does not return names, emails, secrets or another user's account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that identifiers are opaque and that names, emails, secrets, and another user's account are not returned, which is exactly the kind of privacy and scope boundary an agent needs before calling a profile tool.
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?
The description is two tight sentences with the core identity statement front-loaded, followed immediately by the privacy/scope boundary. There is no redundant text or filler.
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 zero-parameter read-only identity tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: what connection it identifies, that IDs are opaque, and what sensitive data is excluded. Together with the strong annotations, no material gap remains 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?
This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description appropriately does not invent or discuss inputs.
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 states a specific verb and resource: identify this authenticated IncidentVault connection using opaque account/workspace IDs. That is concrete enough for an agent to distinguish it from record-oriented siblings such as fetch, search, and find_records, which operate on incident records rather than connection identity.
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 intended use is implied by 'Identify this authenticated IncidentVault connection', but the description does not explicitly say when to call it versus alternatives or state prerequisites beyond the connection being authenticated. The exclusions are about what it does not return, not when the tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_actionfetchfind_recordsincidentvault_dashboardrecord_fieldsreview_recordsearchworkspace_profile
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.