Retrieve a group's on-call schedule for a date range up to three months, using the group ID.
List a group's on-call schedule for a date range (max duration 3 months). Requires a Group ID from alertops_list_groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | End date, format 'mm/dd/yyyy'. | |
| group_id | Yes | Group ID, from alertops_list_groups. | |
| start_date | Yes | Start date, format 'mm/dd/yyyy'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful constraint ('max duration 3 months') and the Group ID dependency, but does not state permissions, error behavior, pagination, or response shape. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but that is not made explicit.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, the date-range constraint, and the prerequisite without filler. Every word contributes to correct tool usage.
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 read-only scheduling tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the key constraints (date range limit, Group ID prerequisite) and enough context to distinguish it from siblings. It does not describe the returned schedule format, but that is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by introducing the 3-month maximum duration constraint on the date range, which is not in the schema. It also reinforces the Group ID source, though that is already present in the schema.
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 action ('List'), the specific resource ('a group's on-call schedule'), and the scope ('for a date range'). It also differentiates from siblings like alertops_get_user_schedule by specifying 'group' rather than 'user'.
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?
It gives a clear prerequisite: 'Requires a Group ID from alertops_list_groups.' However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools such as alertops_get_user_schedule or alertops_get_oncall_now, nor state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.