Retrieve alert channels—such as email, webhook, or Slack—with their IDs so you can attach them to monitors.
List alert channels (email, webhook, Slack…) with their ids, to attach to monitors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default project of the workspace. | |
| workspace | No | Workspace id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results carry ids for monitor attachment, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether results are scoped to the caller's workspace.
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?
One compact sentence with zero filler; the resource and the reason for the call are both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and why. The only gap is scope (workspace/project-level) and result size, which is minor given the annotations.
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 both parameters (project, workspace) are fully documented in the schema, including their fallback-to-default behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (alert channels), enumerates the channel types, and notes the returned field (ids). It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (list_monitors, list_regions, list_workspaces, etc.), none of which deal with notification channels.
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 an implied use context – the ids exist 'to attach to monitors' – which hints at the follow-up workflow, but it never states when to call this versus other listing tools or any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.