List Service Level Indicators (SLIs/SLOs) for any account, including objectives, target percentages, time windows, and NRQL queries. Quickly assess SLO compliance and identify performance gaps.
List all Service Level Indicators (SLIs/SLOs) for the account. Shows objectives, target percentages, time windows, and the NRQL queries used to measure good/valid events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | Account ID (optional) |
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 burden. It communicates that this is a listing operation and previews the returned content (objectives, targets, time windows, NRQL queries), but it does not mention pagination, default account scoping when account_id is omitted, or potential errors/auth requirements.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the output summary is concise.
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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, scope, and the main content fields that will be returned. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit return format/pagination and account_id default behavior.
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 the schema already documents the only parameter, account_id. The description only says 'for the account' and adds no extra meaning about how account_id behaves or what happens if it is omitted.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Service Level Indicators (SLIs/SLOs) for the account'), and it names concrete output fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_alert_policies or list_muting_rules.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving the account's SLI/SLO definitions, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusion conditions or sibling references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.