Rootpath MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

notify_owner

Pages the on-call person for a service via configured Slack or Discord webhook, optionally including an incident ID for context.

Instructions

Page the on-call person of the owning team (Slack/Discord webhook if configured).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "service": "<service>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "notify_owner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes
`service`	Yes
`incident_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description usefully adds the delivery channel (Slack/Discord webhook) and the conditional 'if configured', which warns the agent the page may silently no-op — real added value. It still omits whether repeat calls re-page the same person and whether any auth is required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the key mechanism (webhook paging) placed before the caveat. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a side-effecting notification tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only partial annotation coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain failure behavior, throttling, or what the caller should supply for message/incident_id.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely implies that 'service' selects the owning team; it says nothing about message content expectations or what incident_id does when supplied versus omitted.

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 (Page) and resource (the on-call person of the owning team), which is clearly distinct from read-style siblings like get_owner. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no escalation-context cue, and no mention of alternatives such as get_owner (to look up a team) or open_incident (to record the incident). The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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