squadcast_list_servicesList services for a team. owner_id (a TEAM id — use squadcast_list_teams to find it) is REQUIRED. Squadcast: GET /v3/services.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter by service name → name. | |
| ownerId | Yes | Team id that owns the services (required) → owner_id. | |
| entityOwner | No | Filter by entity owner → entity_owner. |
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so description doesn't need to emphasize safety. Description adds endpoint method (GET) but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. Adequate but not enhanced.
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 sentences, no redundant words. Main action first, then essential detail. Highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple list tool with no output schema, description covers purpose and required parameter. Minor omission: no mention of optional filtering behavior, but covered by schema descriptions. Overall sufficient.
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 good descriptions. Description adds cross-reference to squadcast_list_teams for owner_id, clarifying its derivation. No extra for other params, but sufficient for common understanding.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'services', and specifies scope 'for a team'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like squadcast_get_service (single service) and other list tools (e.g., incidents).
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 states that owner_id is required and directs to squadcast_list_teams to find it. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear from sibling tool differences.
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.