Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

InfraNest

by io.infranest
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Leave the team a note on an incident

add_incident_note

Adds an internal note to an incident's timeline for the team, e.g. "rolled back the deploy". Never shown on a status page. Show the person the text before calling it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "incident_id": "<incident_id>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "add_incident_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYesThe note, in the person's words (up to 5,000 characters).
incident_idYesThe incident id, from status_overview or list_incidents.
organization_idNoThe organization. Leave it out when the token reaches only one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/not-idempotent/not-destructive profile, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: internal-only visibility (never on a status page) and a human-confirmation requirement before calling. It stops short of noting that non-idempotent calls will duplicate notes on retry.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the visibility caveat and confirmation step following in priority order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter write tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what it does, who sees it, and the confirmation requirement. It leaves unstated whether notes are attributed to the caller or how duplicates behave, which are minor gaps rather than blockers.

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 coverage is 100%, so incident_id, note, and organization_id are already fully documented in the schema, including the 5,000-character limit and where to source the id. The description adds only an illustrative note string, not new parameter semantics — baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Adds an internal note to an incident's timeline") plus the key scope distinction that it is never shown on a status page. It does not name the related siblings (incident_timeline, acknowledge_incident), so differentiation relies on the agent's own inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the example ("rolled back the deploy") and the pre-call instruction to show the person the text, which is a real workflow constraint. However there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus incident_timeline or acknowledge_incident, and no exclusions.

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

All InfraNest toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources