Escalate Anything

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get the next escalation step

get_escalation

Read-only

Retrieve a company's escalation ladder, ordered from the lowest rung, with concrete contacts for each step so you can pursue a complaint through the right channels.

Instructions

The escalation ladder for a company, lowest rung first, with concrete contacts for each rung.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "get_escalation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	No
`company`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — the ladder is ordered lowest rung first and includes concrete contacts — but says nothing about how the optional state parameter changes behavior or whether the ladder is static. With annotations covering the core behavior, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It puts the resource and its ordering before the contact detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple read-only lookup and has an output schema, so return-value details are handled elsewhere. However, the description omits when to use it and never explains the state parameter, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only vaguely maps company ('for a company') and does not explain the optional state parameter at all, leaving an agent unable to tell what state controls.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource — the escalation ladder for a company — and states its ordering and contents (lowest rung first, concrete contacts per rung). It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as get_playbook or get_rules, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. The description only implies that it is relevant when a company's escalation path is needed, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.