Routebase

List Incidents

list_incidents

Read-only

List incidents across the organization, newest first, with the monitor that raised each one and its event timeline. Filter by status, by monitor, by environment or spec, and by time window. Works across the organization, no project context needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Only incidents started at or before this UTC timestamp (ISO 8601)
`from`	No	Only incidents started at or after this UTC timestamp (ISO 8601)
`skip`	No	Number of incidents to skip, defaults to 0
`take`	No	Maximum number of incidents to return, defaults to 50
`status`	No	Only incidents in this state: 'open', 'acknowledged' or 'resolved'
`apiSpecId`	No	Public ID (GUID) of an API specification to filter by
`monitorId`	No	Public ID (GUID) of a monitor to filter by
`environmentId`	No	Public ID (GUID) of an environment to filter by

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds behavioral context by describing the return content (newest first, monitor, event timeline) and available filters, which goes beyond the annotation's simple read-only hint.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose and output format are front-loaded, and the filter list is compact. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (monitor, timeline, order) and the filter dimensions. Pagination parameters (skip/take) are in the schema, and time window format is in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it could mention pagination behavior.

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 all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description summarizes filters (status, monitor, environment, spec, time window) but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers parameters.

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 states a specific verb (list), a specific resource (incidents), and adds scope ('across the organization') plus output details (newest first, monitor, event timeline). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_monitors by focusing on incidents and org-wide scope.

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?

It explicitly states the tool works across the organization and that no project context is needed, implying when this tool is appropriate vs project-scoped alternatives. It doesn't name a specific alternative, but the scope clarification provides sufficient usage guidance.

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

All Routebase tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.

Resources

Need Help?