Pingstack

Get incident

get_incident

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one incident by id: its check id and name, cause (what failed, or null when none was recorded), when it started and resolved (null while open), whether it's resolved, and its duration in seconds, counted up to now while open. Notes, status updates and notification details aren't included.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_incident"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Incident id, the numeric id an incident listing reports.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`cause`	Yes
`check_id`	Yes
`resolved`	Yes
`check_name`	Yes
`started_at`	Yes
`resolved_at`	Yes
`duration_seconds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 10, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / cause

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / check_name
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "check_id",
-  "started_at",
-  "resolved_at",
-  "resolved",
-  "duration_seconds"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "check_id",
+  "check_name",
+  "cause",
+  "started_at",
+  "resolved_at",
+  "resolved",
+  "duration_seconds"
+]

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is in computed and nullable field semantics: cause is null when unrecorded, resolved is null while open, and duration is counted up to now while open. That is genuinely non-obvious behavior, though the explicit negative list (notes, status updates, notifications) could have pointed to where those live.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the payload enumeration comes first and the exclusion clause second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, nullability, computed duration, and content exclusions. The only minor gap is no statement about behavior when the id does not exist, which an agent may want to know.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that the id is the numeric id an incident listing reports. The description only repeats "by id" and adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one incident by id") and immediately enumerates exactly what the returned object contains. The singular "one ... by id" framing contrasts cleanly with the listing siblings, so an agent can distinguish fetch-one from list-incidents without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The "by id" framing makes the precondition (you must already have an incident id) clear, and the closing sentence excludes content types, steering the agent away from using this for notes or status updates. It does not name an alternative tool for those needs, so it falls short of explicit routing.

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

All Pingstack tools Inspect

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

Need Help?