Retrieve all configured lockdown and egress scenarios to review an account's emergency response setup. Use offset and pageSize to paginate results.
List all configured emergency scenarios (lockdown/egress).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Skip the first N results. Default: 0. | |
| pageSize | No | Max results to return. Default: 20. Max: 100. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that these are configuration objects with two named types; it says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite offset/pageSize being the only controls.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and scope come first and the type qualifier follows. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.
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 simple read-only list with two fully documented optional params and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. However, it never disambiguates against List_active_emergency_scenarios, which is the one piece of context an agent actually needs when choosing between the two.
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 both offset and pageSize are already fully documented with defaults and maximums. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (emergency scenarios), with the qualifier 'all configured' and the parenthetical '(lockdown/egress)' clarifying the domain. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling List_active_emergency_scenarios via 'configured', but never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for browsing the full set of defined scenarios rather than currently-triggered ones, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (List_active_emergency_scenarios) is stated. A sibling exists that makes the distinction important.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.