Nova

Open alerts

list_alerts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve open care alerts for a recipient, ordered by severity, so caregivers can prioritize urgent issues; optionally include resolved alerts and action history.

Instructions

Open alerts for the care recipient, most severe first (caregivers).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`include_resolved`	No	Include handled alerts and their action history

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value with severity ordering and the implicit 'open by default' scope, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what happens when include_resolved is used.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and default filter. The trailing parenthetical '(caregivers)' is slightly cryptic and costs a bit of clarity for little gain.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, the parameter is fully documented, an output schema exists, and annotations carry the safety profile, so little is required. The remaining gap is disambiguating alerts from read_notifications, which the description never addresses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so include_resolved is already documented as 'Include handled alerts and their action history'. The description's word 'Open' hints at the default exclusion of resolved alerts but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (open alerts), scope (for the care recipient), and default ordering (most severe first), which is more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing alerts from the sibling read_notifications, so an agent cannot fully separate the two from this text alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives only an audience note ('caregivers') and no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as read_notifications or resolve_alert. Nothing tells the agent when this list is the right call versus resolving or acknowledging an alert first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.