termix_alerts_list_alert_firings_current_userRetrieve alert firings assigned to the current user to identify active alerts and resolve issues promptly.
List alert firings for the current user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond what the name implies (listing firings). It does not contradict annotations, but also provides little extra transparency.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that exactly restates the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, as appropriate for a zero-parameter read-only tool.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to know what it returns (list of firings) and that it is safe to call. It could benefit from noting the default scope or time range, but for a zero-param tool, this is adequate.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. The description effectively says 'no input needed, just call it', which is clear. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no properties), so the baseline for no parameters is 4.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 implies usage for retrieving alert firings for the current user, but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like 'get_active_alerts' or 'get_dismissed_alerts'. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, leaving the agent to infer from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.