add_incident_noteAttach/replace a note (max 500 chars) on an incident. Notes publish with the incident on public status pages, their JSON and the Atom feed. Empty string clears.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Incident id (from list_incidents) | |
| note | Yes | The note text ("" clears) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: the 500-character limit, the public/publishing nature, and the clearing effect of an empty string. It also notes that notes appear in JSON and Atom feeds, giving the agent a complete picture of the tool's 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint. Every clause adds value: the char limit, the publication context, and the clearing behavior are all essential. No fluff or repetition.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: operation, constraints, side effects, and an edge case (clearing). It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 schema already documents both parameters well, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the 500-character limit, which is not present in the schema, and reiterates the clearing behavior, adding practical meaning beyond the structured fields.
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 uses specific verbs ('Attach/replace') and clearly identifies the resource ('note on an incident'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on notes, which no other tool handles.
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 provides clear context: you attach notes to incidents, and they are publicly published. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings. This is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.
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.