Rootly MCP server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'alert created' on success and 'unauthorized for invalid token' on failure, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if alerts are already attached. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes verbose, redundant sections like path parameters and responses that duplicate schema information. The response examples add clutter without value. It could be more streamlined by focusing on unique insights rather than repeating structured data.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the 'data' parameter's role or the relationship between alerts and incidents, and while the output schema exists, the description's response examples don't add clarity. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'incident_id' as a required path parameter with no description, and includes response examples but no explanation of the 'data' parameter's structure or meaning. The description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters poorly documented.

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 states the tool 'Attach alerts to an incident from provided data', which provides a clear verb ('Attach') and resource ('alerts to an incident'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createIncident' or 'listIncidentAlerts', leaving the specific role ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling context.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing incident or alerts), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'createIncident' or 'listIncidentAlerts'. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined, leaving gaps for agent decision-making.

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