Rootly MCP server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions pagination parameters (page_number, page_size) and filtering parameters, implying this is a read-only listing operation with filtering and pagination capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, or any rate limits. The inclusion of a 200 response example suggests successful operation but lacks detail about error cases or behavioral traits.

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 structured with clear sections (Query Parameters, Responses) which helps organization. However, it's inefficiently verbose - listing 13 parameters with 'No description' adds bulk without value. The core purpose ('List severities') is front-loaded but overly brief. The response example is minimal and uninformative. The structure is organized but contains significant wasted space.

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 13 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (implied by the 200 response section), the example provided is minimal ('key': 'value') and doesn't demonstrate actual severity data structure. For a listing tool with extensive filtering capabilities, the description should explain what severities are, how filtering works, and what the response contains. The current description leaves too many gaps for effective tool use.

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 for 13 undocumented parameters. The description lists all parameters but provides 'No description' for each one, adding no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (parameter names and types). While it organizes parameters into 'Query Parameters' and 'Responses' sections, this doesn't explain what the parameters actually do or how to use them effectively.

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 severities' which is a tautology of the tool name 'listSeverities'. It doesn't specify what 'severities' are (e.g., incident severity levels, alert severity levels) or provide any context about the resource being listed. While it uses a clear verb ('List'), it lacks specificity about the domain or resource type.

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. There are sibling tools like 'listIncidents', 'listAlerts', and 'createSeverity', but the description doesn't explain when to list severities versus when to create them or when severity information might be needed in other contexts. No usage context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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