List a host's incidents
Incidents for one host, newest-first, cursor-paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, clamped to [1, 200]. Defaults to 50. | |
| since | No | Only include items at or after this ISO 8601 instant. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor returned as `next_cursor` by the previous page. | |
| status | No | Filter by incident lifecycle state. | |
| hostname | Yes | The host's fully-qualified hostname. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior: newest-first ordering and cursor-based pagination. This goes beyond the annotation and the schema to disclose how results are returned, though it does not mention details like auth or rate limits.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by key behavioral details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 five parameters all fully documented in the schema, the description provides the essential runtime behavior (ordering, pagination) not covered by the schema. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on return shape could improve completeness, but the current level is sufficient for a list operation.
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 schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers for the five parameters, matching the baseline.
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 'List a host's incidents', specifying the verb, resource, and scope ('for one host'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_incidents (likely all incidents) and list_hosts (hosts themselves). The added 'newest-first, cursor-paginated' details further clarify behavior.
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 gives clear context that this tool is for retrieving incidents for a single specific host, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for cross-host incident queries), so it lacks exclusions.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource type: participants, access points, hosts, providers, incidents, anomalies, and SLA each have their own get/list vocabulary. The main ambiguous pairs are get_provider_sla vs get_provider_sla_by_key, list_providers vs list_public_providers, and get_summary vs get_network_summary.
The overall get_/list_ verb_noun pattern is consistent and readable, and plural/singular resource names are mostly clear. There are a few exceptions: get_provider_sla and get_country_providers return collections despite using get_, and list_provider_certs is more of an aggregate posture endpoint than a simple list.
43 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and will make the tool set harder for an agent to navigate defensibly. The tools are systematically grouped, but this looks like a broad REST API surface rather than a compact, purpose-fit MCP server.
For a read-only monitoring and directory domain, the coverage is unusually complete: list/detail endpoints, histories, SLA tables, churn breakdowns, anomalies, incidents, adoption aggregates, software landscape, and quality checks are all represented. The drill-down routes such as churn totals to churn participants also avoid dead ends.
