Lists configured inbound AlertOps integrations, returning rule IDs and types (e.g., AWS, Azure). Use these IDs to filter alerts.
List configured inbound integrations in the AlertOps account (integration rule ID -> integration type, e.g. AWS, Azure Alert, AppDynamics). Integration Rule IDs from this response are usable by alertops_list_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the return mapping is disclosed, but the description does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it mention access requirements or response behavior beyond the ID-to-type mapping.
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 no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, the parenthetical adds useful output-shape detail without bloat, and the final sentence explains a practical downstream use of the returned IDs.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, describes the return format with examples, and connects the output to alertops_list_alerts. No critical information needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The schema is empty and fully covered, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify beyond confirming the account-level scope.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List configured inbound integrations in the AlertOps account'. It also clarifies the output shape as an 'integration rule ID -> integration type' mapping with concrete examples, and the mention of alertops_list_alerts helps distinguish it from sibling tools.
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 statement that 'Integration Rule IDs from this response are usable by alertops_list_alerts' provides clear workflow context for when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.