Acknowledge one of YOUR alerts by its alert id (from list_my_alerts) — marks it as seen/being-handled without resolving it. Optionally attach a note. Requires an API key with write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Optional note (max 500 chars). | |
| alert_id | Yes | The alert id from list_my_alerts (a UUID). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by explaining the state change ('marks it as seen/being-handled') and emphasizing it does not resolve the alert. The write scope requirement is also disclosed, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. No contradictions with 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?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add key constraints (not resolving, optional note, scope requirement). Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no fluff.
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 acknowledgment tool, the description covers the essential context despite lacking an output schema. It states the input source, the effect, and the access requirement. It does not describe the response format, but the action is straightforward and annotations plus schema provide adequate completeness.
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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats that alert_id comes from list_my_alerts and note is optional, but these details are already fully captured in the schema. Thus the description adds no significant semantic value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.
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 clearly states the action: 'Acknowledge one of YOUR alerts' with a specific resource (alert id). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'resolve_alert' by explicitly noting 'without resolving it', making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: when you want to mark an alert as seen/being-handled but not resolve it. It also specifies that the alert id comes from 'list_my_alerts' and requires write scope, effectively telling the agent the prerequisite context and excluding the resolve path.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The five check tools are differentiated by their target (agent readiness, broken links, domain health, email blacklist, MCP health), and asset/alert management tools have clear CRUD/lifecycle boundaries. No two tools appear to overlap.
All 16 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., check_domain_health, create_asset, list_my_alerts). The verbs are clear and consistently used, making the API predictable.
16 tools is well-scoped for a monitoring service that spans asset management, alert lifecycle, multiple diagnostic checks, vendor status, and plan listing. Every tool has a distinct role and earns its place without redundancy.
The tool surface covers full asset CRUD (create, list, update, delete, get checks), alert lifecycle (list, acknowledge, resolve), and a broad set of standalone checks. Minor gaps like a direct 'get asset' endpoint or manual re-check are absent, but core workflows are fully supported.
