Skip to main content
Glama

Fixter

by dev.fixter.mcp

get_alert_rules

Fetch the calling tenant's alert rules. READ: available to any authenticated user.

Omit ruleId to list every rule; supply ruleId to fetch a single rule. Either way returns the full rule definition (source, filter, measure, groupBy, compiledQuerySql, condition).

This does not say where a rule's alerts are delivered. To state where they go, call get_notification_destinations with source "alerting" and the rule id as subject, and report what that call returns. To change where they go, call set_notification_destinations with the same source and subject.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ruleIdNoOptional rule id (UUID); omit to list every rule for the tenant

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'READ: available to any authenticated user,' signaling no side effects. It also transparently states a limitation: 'This does not say where a rule's alerts are delivered,' and points to other tools for that. While it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, for a read-only getter this is adequate and above average.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately long but well-structured: clear purpose first, then modes, then a valuable paragraph on related tools. No filler sentences; every part earns its place. It could be tightened slightly, but the structure supports readability and scannability.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough. It explains the return content, the authentication level, and provides pointers for related operations (notification destinations). It does not mention pagination or error scenarios, but such details are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema already describes ruleId with the full omit/supply behavior: 'Optional rule id (UUID); omit to list every rule for the tenant.' The description repeats this, adding no new parameter-specific semantics. The mention of returned fields (source, filter, measure, etc.) is about output, not parameters. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3 and the description does not exceed it.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the calling tenant's alert rules.' It clearly separates the two modes (list vs single by ruleId) and explicitly notes it does NOT cover delivery destinations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_alert_rule_status and get_notification_destinations. This is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly instructs when to use this tool (fetching alert rules) and when to use alternatives: 'To state where they go, call get_notification_destinations... To change where they go, call set_notification_destinations.' It also explains the distinction between omitting and supplying ruleId, giving clear operational guidance.

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

All Fixter toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool pairs are near-duplicates, including three deprecated aliases (add_investigation_alert_channel vs add_alert_channel, list_investigation_alert_channels vs list_alert_channels, remove_investigation_alert_channel vs remove_alert_channel) that muddy the surface. Additionally, suppress_signal and create_ignore_rule both suppress alerting via different mechanisms, which could cause misselection despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_api_test, list_issues, set_alert_rule_status). A few bare-noun tools (logs, spans, metrics) and the standalone verb correlate break the pattern slightly, but overall the naming is highly consistent and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 52 tools, this is on the extreme end of the calibration scale. Even accounting for the broad scope of an observability platform, the count is excessive and includes several deprecated redundancies that inflate it further.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides comprehensive CRUD/lifecycle coverage across all major domains: alert rules (create, read, update, delete, status, delivery, preview), API tests (create, read, update, delete, run history, credentials), ignore rules and suppressions, issues with digest config, investigations with claim/read, channels, credentials, and rich query tools (logs, spans, metrics, SQL, traces, correlation). No obvious dead ends or missing core operations.

Resources