Retrieve recent alerts sent via email, webhook, Slack, Discord, or Telegram, with the change that triggered each notification. Filter by channel to review specific notifications.
List the latest alerts sent to the user (email, webhook, Slack, Discord, Telegram), with details of the change that triggered each one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Optional filter by alert channel |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that results include the triggering change details and span five channels, but it omits how many alerts 'latest' returns, whether pagination or time windows apply, and whether any permissions are required.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero redundant clauses; the resource is stated first and the channel/details qualifiers follow naturally.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden; it partially does by mentioning the triggering change details. However, result count, ordering, and pagination behavior are absent, leaving gaps for a list tool with an unfiltered default.
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 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the channel list rather than adding filter syntax or default behavior.
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) and resource (alerts sent to the user) and enumerates the delivery channels, so the resource is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the monitor-management siblings, but the alert-vs-monitor distinction is self-evident from the wording.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, no exclusions, and no alternatives named (e.g. per-channel or per-monitor query tools). Usage is only implied by the word 'latest', which is never defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.