Resolve one of YOUR alerts by its alert id (from list_my_alerts) — closes it. Optionally set resolution ("fixed" | "false_positive" | "wontfix") and 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). | |
| resolution | No | Why the alert is being closed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already indicating idempotent and non-destructive behavior, the description adds context about closing the alert, the optional resolution and note, and the write-scope requirement. It doesn't contradict 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?
Two sentences with the main action first, no fluff. Every word contributes: the verb, resource, ID source, optional parameters, and prerequisite.
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 mutation with 3 params, the description covers purpose, source of the ID, optionality, and auth scope. No output schema exists, so return details are not required. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 covers all parameters (100%), but the description adds meaning by pointing alert_id to list_my_alerts and explaining the optional resolution enum and note. It goes beyond a bare schema listing.
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 tool resolves/closes an alert by ID, with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('your alerts'). It differentiates from sibling tools like acknowledge_alert and list_my_alerts by indicating a closure action on existing alerts.
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 clear context: to close one of your alerts obtained from list_my_alerts, and it mentions the requirement of write scope. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the intent is clear, and the write-scope note gives practical guidance.
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.
