Retrieves active PRTG alarms, listing sensors currently in a down state (status 5) for a configured target. Helps identify network monitoring issues needing attention.
[READ] Active PRTG alarms — sensors in a down state (status 5).
Args: target: PRTG 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?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with the '[READ]' marker, so safety is doubly clear. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful semantics — the alarm set is limited to sensors in a down state (status 5), which tells the agent what is and is not returned. It does not cover pagination or result volume, but the annotation already carries the safety profile.
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 lines: the operation and its defining filter first, then the single argument's semantics. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema, and the most important fact (what counts as an alarm) is front-loaded.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: the operation, the filter semantics, and the argument's origin. Only the shape of the returned alarm list is unstated, which is a minor gap for a simple read.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: 'target: PRTG target name from config; omit for the default.' That explains both the source of valid values and the optional/null behavior, which the bare anyOf[string, null] schema does not convey.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Active PRTG alarms') and sharpens it with a precise definition — sensors in a down state, status 5. That definition distinguishes it from a generic sensor listing, though it never names a sibling (e.g. prtg_sensors or active_alerts) to route the agent explicitly.
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 '[READ]' marker plus 'omit for the default' tells the agent this is a safe read and how to handle the optional target. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over prtg_sensors, prtg_sensor_details, or prtg_system_status — all plausible siblings for 'what's wrong right now' questions. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.