Skip to main content
Glama

Observability alert check

wever_observability-alert-check
Read-only

Agent Observability: submit the alert rules for an agent’s operation: the failure conditions that matter, each with its id, name and severity (critical, high, medium or low), and each alert with its id, the failure conditions it fires on, what it watches, its threshold, the period the threshold is read over, its owner, the owner’s next action or runbook, its channel and when it last fired in a test; and optionally the moment to read the rules at. The signed report lists every failure condition with the alerts that fire on it and every alert with its threshold read as numbered, vague or missing, and names alerting that would not work when it matters: failure conditions with no alert, alerts with no stated threshold, and alerts that name no owner and no next action; then an owner or a next action alone, thresholds with no number, no window, no test within 90 days, references to conditions not in the list and alerts tied to no condition, with the fix for each. Whether each production agent has a named owner, responder and fallback is wever_incident-ownership-check, when an agent hands a decision to a person is wever_escalation-threshold-check and routing delivered watch fires and job results is wever_alert-route. Verdict alerting_fails, alerting_gaps, alerting_unverified or alerting_works. POST /api/observability-alert-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-observability-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-observability/.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "failures": "<failures>"
    },
    "name": "wever_observability-alert-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoThe moment to read the rules at.
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
alertsNoEach alert rule.
failuresYesEach failure condition that matters for the operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds substantial context on top: 'Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write.' It also discloses the commercial and auth model — 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, and the requirement to bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and route — plus the Ed25519 signed receipt, none of which is inferable from 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the reads-only/no-write guarantee are front-loaded, which is good, but the report description is a single sprawling sentence with chained clauses ('...then an owner or a next action alone, thresholds with no number, no window, no test within 90 days...') that is hard to parse. The content mostly earns its place, but bullets or separate sentences for the verdict/gap taxonomy would materially improve scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex audit tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return surface: the signed report's structure, the four verdicts (alerting_fails, alerting_gaps, alerting_unverified, alerting_works), the gap categories with fixes, and the endpoint and contract page. Payment, authentication, and side-effect profile are all stated, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every field including as_of, label, threshold, window, tested_at and covers. The description restates the same field set in prose without adding syntax, formats, or constraints beyond it (e.g. it never clarifies date format for as_of or tested_at). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'submit the alert rules for an agent's operation' and enumerates exactly what constitutes those rules (failure conditions with id/name/severity, alerts with id/covers/condition/threshold/window/owner/next_action/channel/tested_at). It also names the three adjacent checks (wever_incident-ownership-check, wever_escalation-threshold-check, wever_alert-route) with the domain each covers, so an agent can separate this audit from its siblings without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The sibling sentences give clear routing context: ownership/responder/fallback questions go to wever_incident-ownership-check, human handoff to wever_escalation-threshold-check, delivery routing to wever_alert-route. What is missing is an explicit positive trigger ('call this before shipping an agent to production' or similar) and any stated when-not-to-use beyond the sibling routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources