Rootly MCP server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: automatic pagination handling and fetching of multiple pages. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, authentication requirements, or what 'matching a query' entails beyond the schema's description. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since there are none), but it's incomplete for a tool that likely interacts with a complex incident management system.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the tool's core functionality and its key automation feature. Every sentence earns its place by adding value (the second sentence clarifies the pagination behavior). It's front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential behavior (automatic pagination) that isn't captured in structured fields. However, it misses usage guidelines compared to siblings and lacks some behavioral context (e.g., performance implications), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('max_results' and 'query'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain query syntax, examples, or how 'max_results' interacts with pagination. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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: 'Get all incidents matching a query by automatically fetching multiple pages.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('incidents'), and key behavior ('automatically fetching multiple pages'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search_incidents_paginated', which appears to serve a similar paginated search function, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 the sibling tool 'search_incidents_paginated' or explain any differences (e.g., automatic vs. manual pagination, performance trade-offs, or query capabilities). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between these two similar tools.

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