Retrieve incidents with open ones first, including automatic and manual entries, optionally scoped by workspace or project.
List incidents (open ones first), automatic and manual.
| 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful behavior not in structured fields: result ordering ("open ones first") and inclusion of both automatic and manual incidents. However it says nothing about pagination or result limits, so it is additive but not rich.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The phrase "automatic and manual" is slightly terse and unexplained, but overall it is efficiently sized.
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 two-optional-parameter list tool with rich annotations the description is adequate, but with no output schema it leaves the shape of an incident, pagination behavior, and default result volume unstated. Nothing is wrong, but an agent lacks a couple of practical details.
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 coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters (project, workspace) are fully documented with their source and default behavior. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
"List incidents" is a specific verb+resource, and "automatic and manual" clarifies the range of incident types returned. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_incident (single fetch) or post_incident_update, but the plural list intent is self-evident.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over get_incident for a single record, and no note on filtering/sorting behavior. Retrieval is only implied by the verb "List".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.