squadcast_add_incident_noteAdd a war-room note to a LIVE incident (optionally with attachment URLs). Squadcast: POST /v3/incidents/{IncidentId}/warroom.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The note message (required). | |
| incidentId | Yes | The incident id to add a note to (required). | |
| attachments | No | Attachment URLs (defaults to none). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description confirms the mutability (adds a note) and adds context about LIVE incidents and optional attachments. However, annotations already set destructiveHint=true, and the description adds no further behavioral details like permissions or side effects.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the main action and optional attachments. It is fairly complete for an agent, though it could mention response or error cases.
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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description mentions 'optionally with attachment URLs', but does not add significant meaning beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'add', the resource 'war-room note to a LIVE incident', and mentions optional attachment URLs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like squadcast_list_incident_notes, which lists notes, and other incident actions.
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?
The description implies usage for adding notes to live incidents, but does not explicitly state when to use, when not, or any alternatives. No guidance is given compared to sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair, such as incident actions, services, teams, users, schedules, etc. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'squadcast_verb_noun' in snake_case. Verbs are always first (e.g., acknowledge, add, get, list, resolve), making naming predictable.
With 16 tools, the server covers key incident management operations and supporting resources without being overly numerous or sparse. The scope is well-calibrated.
The toolset covers essential incident lifecycle actions (acknowledge, resolve, add notes, list/get incidents) and supporting resources. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of create/update for non-incident entities, but these are not critical for the primary incident response workflow.