allquiet_who_is_on_callGet who is currently (or at a given point in time) on call, optionally filtered by team/user. All Quiet: GET /v1/on-call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamIds | No | Filter by team id(s). | |
| userIds | No | Filter by user id(s). | |
| timestamp | No | ISO8601 point-in-time to check (defaults to now). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and description adds the API endpoint (GET /v1/on-call) and that timestamp defaults to now, providing clarity beyond annotations.
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 concise sentences: one for purpose with filters, one for API endpoint. No wasted words.
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 read-only tool with full schema and annotations, the description is complete. No output schema needed; no gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions; description adds value by identifying the endpoint and default timestamp behavior, though it doesn't detail each parameter beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states the action (Get), resource (who is on call), and optional filters (by team/user). Distinguishes from sibling tools like allquiet_create_on_call_override.
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?
Explicitly mentions default behavior (current time) and optional filtering. Lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, but sufficient for a simple read tool.
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.