Fetch Prometheus recording and alerting rules, filterable by rule type or target, to review active observability rules.
[READ] All recording + alerting rules, optionally filtered by type.
Args: rule_type: Filter by "alerting" or "recording"; omit for both. target: Prometheus target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| rule_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true is already provided by annotations, and the '[READ]' marker merely echoes it. The description adds the useful default behavior for 'target' (omit for the default), but says nothing about return volume, pagination, or what a filtered vs unfiltered result looks like.
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?
Short and front-loaded, with the one-line summary first and per-parameter notes after. There is minor redundancy between 'optionally filtered by type' in the summary and the rule_type line below it.
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?
A no-output-schema list tool with annotations covering the read-only profile: the description is adequate on inputs but silent on return shape, ordering, or empty-result behavior. Adequate but with a visible 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and it delivers: rule_type's accepted values ('alerting' or 'recording') are documented and the target parameter's default-fallback semantics are explained. It does not clarify whether target matches a config key or a URL/label.
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 ('list'), resource ('recording + alerting rules') and scope ('optionally filtered by type'), with a '[READ]' marker. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like firing_alerts or list_silences, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not (e.g. rule_health).
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 explains parameter usage ('omit for both', 'omit for the default') but never says when to reach for this tool versus rule_health, alertmanager_alerts, or firing_alerts. Usage is implied rather than stated with conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.