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 | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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.