List incidents filtered by severity or status to retrieve incident cards with details. Use filters for critical, high, medium, low, resolved, in progress, or pending.
List incidents filtered by severity level, returning incident cards with details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| severity | No | Filter by severity level |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavioral aspects. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The phrase 'returning incident cards with details' gives a hint about the response format but lacks explicit behavioral transparency.
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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core function. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action ('List incidents') followed by the filter option.
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 the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It mentions the return of incident cards with details, which is sufficient context. It does not address pagination or ordering, but these are not strictly necessary for a basic list operation.
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 coverage is high (100%) because both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds only a minimal note about filtering by severity, which duplicates the schema. Since the schema already describes the parameters, the description adds no significant additional meaning.
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 lists incidents, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from get-incident-details by implying a collection rather than a single item. However, it mentions only filtering by severity while the schema also supports filtering by status, so the description is slightly incomplete.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-incident-details or export-report. It implies use for listing incidents but does not explain scenarios, such as when a summary list is needed versus detailed details or export.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.