Retrieve active alerts with duplicate storms rolled up into one counted entry, cutting through alert noise to surface distinct issues.
[READ] Active alerts with dedup/rollup by message (SolarWinds or PRTG).
Rolls up storms (e.g. interface-flap repeats) into one counted entry so the signal isn't buried under duplicates.
Args: target: Monitoring target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a read operation, that alerts are deduplicated/rolled up by message, and that storms are collapsed into a counted entry. This is valuable context, though exact output fields are not described.
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 compact and well-structured: purpose, behavior, and arguments. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes, with no redundant filler.
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 tool with only one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics. It hints at the return shape with 'one counted entry' but does not fully specify result fields; the low complexity makes this a minor gap.
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?
The input schema only defines a nullable 'target' with a default and no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that 'target' is a monitoring target name from config and that omitting it uses the default, which is the essential semantic context.
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 opens with '[READ] Active alerts' and explains the dedup/rollup behavior, giving a clear verb and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from simple listing tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_events or prtg_alarms.
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 when to use the tool: when you need active alerts without duplicate storm entries. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternative tool routing, leaving the agent to infer the choice from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.