Skip to main content
Glama

betterstack

by io.usefulapi

Acknowledge an incident

acknowledge_incident
Idempotent

Acknowledge an ongoing incident, signalling that someone is looking into it (stops further escalation). Idempotent-ish: acknowledging an already-acknowledged incident returns HTTP 409. Uptime API: POST /api/v3/incidents/{id}/acknowledge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
incident_idYesThe incident id to acknowledge (from list_incidents).
acknowledged_byYesUser e-mail or a custom identifier of who is acknowledging the incident.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds behavioral details: idempotent-ish behavior, HTTP 409 for already acknowledged incidents, and API endpoint. No contradictions.

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, efficiently front-loaded with key information. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple mutation tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains effect, behavior on re-acknowledgment, and source for incident_id.

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 has 100% coverage of parameters. The description adds minor context (incident_id from list_incidents, acknowledged_by as email or identifier), but mostly restates schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Acknowledge' and the resource 'ongoing incident', and explains the effect (stops further escalation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_incident.

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 description implies when to use (ongoing incident, someone looking into it) and mentions idempotent behavior. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance.

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

All betterstack toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: monitors, heartbeats, incidents, on-call schedules, and status pages are clearly separated. Incident actions (list, get, acknowledge, resolve) are unambiguous with no overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_monitors, get_incident, acknowledge_incident). The naming is predictable and easy to follow.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools covering the primary aspects of uptime monitoring and incident management, the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being excessive.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers reading and incident lifecycle management well, but lacks any create/update/delete operations for monitors, heartbeats, or status pages. This is a notable gap for a comprehensive monitoring platform, though the core incident workflow is covered.

Resources