list_incidentsList incidents (grouped operational issues) across your targets. Filter by status. Returns title, severity, status, findings count, and deployment correlation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of incidents to return | |
| status | No | Filter by incident status | |
| targetId | No | Filter by target ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that it is a listing operation and lists returned fields. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, default behavior when status is omitted, or whether targetId is required for cross-target scope. Some behavioral traits are implied but not fully specified.
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 a compact two-sentence structure: the first sentence states the action and scope, and the second lists return fields and filter. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It mentions title, severity, status, findings count, and deployment correlation, but does not describe pagination, default limit behavior, or the overall response structure. It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves some context gaps.
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%, providing baseline 3. The description mentions 'Filter by status', which aligns with the status parameter, and 'across your targets' implies targetId context, but it adds little semantic value beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.
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 that it lists incidents, defines them as 'grouped operational issues', and indicates scope 'across your targets'. It also mentions filtering by status and the return fields, which distinguishes it from tools like get_incident and list_findings.
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: it lists incidents across targets and supports status filtering. It implies multiple-incident retrieval, contrasting with get_incident for single incidents, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or 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 clearly separated by resource (targets, runs, findings, incidents, etc.) and action. A few close pairs like active_runs/list_runs and mute_finding/create_muting_rule could confuse, but descriptions clarify the distinctions.
The majority of tools follow verb_noun naming (create_target, get_target, delete_journey). A few outliers use noun phrases (active_runs, daily_trends, system_health, team_stats) which slightly breaks the pattern, but overall the convention is predictable.
74 tools is extreme for any MCP server. Even for a comprehensive monitoring platform, this overwhelms agents with too many granular operations (e.g., enable_all_tests vs disable_all_tests vs update_test, or import_targets duplicating create_target). A more consolidated set would be appropriate.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for the monitoring domain: full CRUD for targets, journeys, rules, reports, secrets, and fragments; plus run triggering, incident management, findings handling, SEO tracking, guest scans, and admin tools. Only maintenance windows lack an update operation, which is minor.