Rootly MCP server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions HTTP response codes (201, 401, 422) which indicate success, authentication, and validation behaviors, adding some context beyond the basic 'creates' action. However, it lacks critical details like required permissions, rate limits, side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 it's cluttered with HTTP response details and JSON examples that don't add value for tool selection. The response information could be better handled by an output schema. The structure is somewhat organized but includes unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity (1 parameter with nested objects), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the input parameter semantics, doesn't leverage the output schema to avoid redundancy, and omits behavioral context like authentication needs. For a creation tool with rich nested parameters, this leaves significant 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about the 'data' parameter or its nested structure (attributes like name, color, description, etc.). This leaves the agent completely in the dark about what data to provide and in what format.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Creates a new incident_type from provided data'. This is a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('incident_type'), making the tool's function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createIncident' or 'createSeverity' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or how it differs from other creation tools in the sibling list (e.g., createIncident, createService). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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