List the calling tenant's active alert suppressions. READ: available to any authenticated user.
Each entry shows its scope (service, signal, operation — a null signal means "all signals", a null operation means "whole service"), its severity cap (maxSeverity: CRITICAL suppresses everything, WARNING suppresses only WARNING-severity alerts), and its expiry (a null expiresAt means it never expires).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of null fields for scope and expiry, defines severity caps, and indicates the operation is read-only and accessible to all authenticated users. It does not mention pagination or top-level response structure, but these are minor for a simple list.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, and the second paragraph adds concise but valuable context about null semantics and severity caps. No fluff or 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?
Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the key response fields (scope, severity cap, expiry) and the meaning of null values. It does not specify whether the return is an array or if there is pagination, leaving minor ambiguity, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a zero-parameter read-only list.
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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 lists active alert suppressions for the calling tenant, using the specific verb 'list' and identifying the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like suppress_signal/unsuppress_signal and list_ignore_rules.
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?
Provides a 'READ' note and access information ('available to any authenticated user'), giving some context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The implied usage is to view active suppressions, but better differentiation from list_ignore_rules would be useful.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.