list_incidentsDowntime incidents (ongoing and resolved) across all monitors: start, duration, cause, acknowledgement, notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days, 1-90 (default 30) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds value by specifying the scope (ongoing and resolved), the all-monitor coverage, and the returned fields (start, duration, cause, acknowledgement, notes). This goes beyond the annotation without contradiction.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the resource, scope, and returned fields in a compact manner. Every word 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 simple one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the key fields returned and the coverage of all monitors, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. Schema fills in the default lookback.
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 provides a full description for the only parameter 'days' (lookback window, 1-90, default 30). The description adds no additional semantics for this parameter, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 downtime incidents (both ongoing and resolved) across all monitors, with specific fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ack_incident and add_incident_note, which act on incidents rather than listing them.
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 usage by specifying 'across all monitors' and the incident fields, giving clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but since this is the only incident-listing sibling, no further guidance is needed.
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.