get_alertsWhere alerts go (email, Slack, webhook) and the latest alerts sent.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_alerts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response includes both destination configuration and the latest sent alerts, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it does not mention pagination, limits on 'latest', or other behavioral details.
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?
One compact sentence with no waste, and the two content pieces (destinations, latest alerts) are front-loaded. It is arguably slightly terse given the lack of an explicit verb, but efficient.
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?
With zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, little else is needed. The description covers both what is returned and the channel types, though it could be clearer about scope of 'latest' and whether both pieces are always returned.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to explain.
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 conveys that this tool returns alert destinations (email, Slack, webhook) plus recently sent alerts, which is a reasonably specific resource description. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, though no sibling overlaps this domain.
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?
No guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The agent must infer usage entirely from the wording 'where alerts go' and 'latest alerts sent'.
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.