List grouped production SDK errors newest first to triage incidents. Filter by level, status, time range, or project and retrieve issue IDs for detailed inspection.
Grouped production errors, newest first. Each issue has an id usable with octri_get_issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| range | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| project_id | No | Project id. Optional, falls back to the CLI's selected project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering and grouping, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, default limit/range, required permissions, or the shape of a returned issue beyond the presence of an id.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The ordering fact and the sibling linkage are both load-bearing.
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?
A five-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations needs more: defaults for limit/range, whether results are paginated, and what an issue record contains are all unstated. The description is too thin for the tool's surface area.
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 only 20% (only project_id is documented). The description adds no meaning for level, limit, range, or status; the enums provide allowed values but not semantics such as what 'ignored' means or how limit interacts with grouping.
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 resource is specific (grouped production errors) and the description states presentation order (newest first), making the tool's output recognizable. It also links forward to the sibling octri_get_issue, so an agent can distinguish the list tool from the detail tool.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent infers it should call this to discover issues and then use octri_get_issue for detail. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on how the level/status/range filters change the result.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.