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) and content types, which adds some behavioral context like success conditions and error handling. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what 'creates' entails operationally. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's incomplete 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 includes verbose HTTP response details that may not be essential for tool selection. The structure mixes purpose with response examples, making it less streamlined. Some sentences (like the response examples) could be trimmed or moved elsewhere for better conciseness.

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 (1 parameter with nested objects), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and some behavioral aspects (HTTP responses), but it lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and detailed operational traits. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should do more for a creation tool.

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 the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't explain the 'data' parameter or its nested structure (attributes like name, color, severity, etc.). While it implies data is needed to create a severity, it adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferred from the tool name. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 severity from provided data.' This specifies the verb ('creates') and resource ('severity'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'createIncident' or 'createService' beyond the resource type, which is why it's not a 5.

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 (e.g., authentication), compare with sibling tools like 'listSeverities', or specify use cases. The only implied context is from the HTTP response examples, but this isn't explicit usage advice.

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