Find the owning team, on-call contact, escalation path, and runbooks for a service so responders know who to notify and how to resolve incidents.
Owning team, who is on call, escalation path and runbooks for a service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the field list — nothing about lookup failures, freshness of on-call data, or scope limitations.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the most important returned attribute, though the missing verb makes the opening less orienting than it could be.
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?
With no output schema, the field enumeration usefully signals what comes back, and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, the parameter remains entirely unexplained and no usage context is given, so it is only minimally complete.
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% and the sole 'service' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'for a service' loosely implies the input's role but gives no format or identifier semantics, so the description does not compensate for the gap.
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 reads as a list of returned fields (owning team, on-call, escalation path, runbooks) for a service rather than a clear verb+resource statement. An agent can infer it retrieves ownership metadata, and it is distinguishable from notify_owner, but the purpose is implied rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as notify_owner or get_service_health. There is no mention of prerequisites, escalation context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.