List recent deliveries (fires) for one Alert — what was matched and where it was sent. Not metered. (requires a free Prowlo account — call it to get a signup link)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Alert id whose deliveries to list (from alert_list) | |
| limit | No | Max deliveries to return, 1-200 (default 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'Not metered' (billing behavior) and the auth prerequisite ('requires a free Prowlo account'). It also clarifies what data is returned, going beyond 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?
The description is one concise sentence plus a parenthetical, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every phrase (scope, non-metered, auth) earns its place without 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?
For a simple read tool with two well-documented parameters and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, auth, and metering. The lack of output schema is compensated by the mention of return content ('what was matched and where it was sent').
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%, with both id and limit fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'List recent deliveries (fires) for one Alert'. It specifies the resource (deliveries) and result ('what was matched and where it was sent'), distinguishing it from siblings like alert_list (which lists alerts, not deliveries).
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 defines the scope ('for one Alert') and notes 'Not metered' and 'requires a free Prowlo account', giving context on when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's unique purpose among siblings makes the usage clear.
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.
