Delete a draft incident from a status page without publishing it, keeping incident lists accurate and avoiding unnecessary alerts.
Dismiss a draft incident (deletes it without publishing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes | ||
| incident_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool deletes an incident without publishing, which is destructive. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behavioral aspects such as irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects, or return value details beyond the bare minimum.
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 extremely concise at a single sentence. While it avoids unnecessary detail, it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose, such as a brief clarification on draft-only applicability.
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?
Given the presence of sibling tools and a non-trivial input schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how this tool differs from 'delete_status_page_incident', nor does it cover output schema or error scenarios, leaving significant 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameters 'page_id' or 'incident_id' at all, providing no meaning beyond their names. This severely limits understanding for an agent.
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 clearly states it deletes a draft incident without publishing, which specifies the action and resource. However, it does not fully distinguish from the sibling tool 'delete_status_page_incident', which might also delete incidents, leaving ambiguity.
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?
No usage context is provided. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'publish_status_page_incident' or 'delete_status_page_incident', nor does it mention prerequisites or restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.