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 pagination parameters and includes an example response format, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The response example is minimal and doesn't explain the actual structure of incident data.

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 poorly structured - it starts with a tautological purpose statement, then dumps 61 parameter names with 'No description' labels in a massive unhelpful list. The response section includes an example but it's minimal and uninformative. This is not concise but rather under-specified with wasted space on repetitive 'No description' annotations.

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?

For a tool with 61 parameters, no annotations, and complex filtering capabilities, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the incident domain, filtering logic, pagination behavior, or response structure. While there's an output schema mentioned, the description doesn't bridge the gap between the minimal input documentation and what users need to effectively use this complex 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?

With only 3% schema description coverage (only 2 of 61 parameters have descriptions), the description attempts to compensate by listing all parameters with 'No description' labels, but this adds no actual semantic value. The minimal descriptions for 'sort' and 'include' parameters are helpful but insufficient given the massive parameter count. The description fails to explain what any of the filter parameters actually filter by or their expected formats.

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 'List incidents' which is a tautology of the tool name 'listIncidents'. It doesn't specify what kind of incidents, from what system, or what the output contains. While it's clear this is a listing operation, it lacks specificity about the resource domain or scope.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_incidents_paginated' or 'get_all_incidents_matching'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, access requirements, or typical use cases for this specific listing approach versus other incident-related tools.

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