ack_incidentMark an ongoing incident as "someone is on it" — pauses still-down reminder alerts for that monitor until recovery. Set un=true to un-acknowledge (re-arms reminders).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Incident id (from list_incidents) | |
| un | No | true = remove an existing acknowledgement |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that acknowledgement pauses still-down reminder alerts until recovery, and that un=true re-arms reminders. This goes beyond a generic 'acknowledge' verb, providing insight into side effects.
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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the un parameter's effect. No filler or redundant information; every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, this description fully covers the action, effect, and parameter semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds extra behavioral context for the un parameter by explaining it re-arms reminders, which is beyond the schema's 'remove an existing acknowledgement'. The id parameter is adequately covered by the schema.
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's action: 'Mark an ongoing incident as someone is on it' and explains the effect on reminder alerts. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_incidents or add_incident_note by focusing on the acknowledgement action and its consequence.
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?
The description implies when to use it: during an ongoing incident when someone is handling it, to pause still-down reminders. It also explains the un-acknowledge option. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. There is no overlap between monitor lifecycle tools (create, get, update, delete, list), incident tools (list, ack, note), or utility tools (check_url, get_account, get_status_page). The descriptions explicitly differentiate check_url from create_monitor, eliminating confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case: ack_incident, add_incident_note, check_url, create_monitor, delete_monitor, get_account, get_monitor, get_status_page, list_channels, list_incidents, list_monitors, update_monitor. No mixed conventions or inconsistent verb forms exist.
12 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a monitoring service. Each tool serves a purposeful function without redundancy, covering monitor management, incident handling, and account/status information.
Monitor lifecycle is complete with CRUD plus list. Incidents have list, acknowledge, and note tools, which covers the core incident workflow. Minor gaps include no channel management (only list_channels) and no way to discover status pages (get_status_page requires a known slug), but these are peripheral and workable for most use cases.