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. It mentions 'enhanced pagination control' and 'better pagination handling' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'enhanced' entails (e.g., cursor-based vs. offset). The description is too vague to adequately inform agent behavior.

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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized but could be more informative. Every sentence earns its place, though it lacks depth.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a search tool with no annotations, it should provide more context on usage scenarios, limitations, or how it differs from siblings. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral guidance.

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 documents all parameters (page_number, page_size, query). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, query syntax, or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool 'Search incidents with enhanced pagination control' which clarifies the verb (search) and resource (incidents). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listIncidents' or 'get_all_incidents_matching' beyond mentioning 'enhanced pagination control' without specifics. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 mentions 'better pagination handling than the standard API endpoint' but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listIncidents' or 'get_all_incidents_matching'. No explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or prerequisites is provided, leaving usage context vague.

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