List saved Splunk alerts with optional filters for app, owner, name, and result count to identify scheduled and triggering alerts.
List saved searches classified as alerts (scheduled + triggering) that you can see.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | App namespace. Omit for all. | |
| count | No | Max results (default 50, max 200). | |
| owner | No | Owner username. Omit for all. | |
| query | No | Case-insensitive substring match on name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that results are limited to what the caller 'can see' and defines alert classification as 'scheduled + triggering,' which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication expectations, or whether only owned alerts versus all visible alerts are returned.
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 with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the verb, the resource, the alert classification, and the visibility qualifier. It is appropriately compact for a straightforward list tool.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple list operation and the schema fully documents all four parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not mention sibling routing (e.g., using get_alert for details) or any additional behavioral context, leaving moderate gaps.
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%, and each parameter already has semantic meaning in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the core listing concept, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'List saved searches classified as alerts,' and adds clarifying scope with '(scheduled + triggering)' and 'that you can see.' This clearly separates it from siblings like list_dashboards, list_reports, and get_alert without requiring schema inspection.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_alert, create_alert, update_alert, or list_reports. The only usage signal is the verb 'List,' so the agent must infer the appropriate context rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.