list_annotationsRetrieve Grafana annotations, the events overlaid on graphs, optionally filtered by time range or tags to inspect changes, deploys, or alerts.
List annotations (events overlaid on graphs), optionally within a time range or by tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Range end, epoch ms. | |
| from | No | Range start, epoch ms. | |
| tags | No | Restrict to annotations with these tags. | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, fully covering the safety and repeatability profile. The description adds the domain gloss but says nothing about default limits, pagination, or ordering. Against rich annotations, this is adequate but thin.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the filters trailing as optional. No wasted words, though the parenthetical is the only added value.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description could have described the return shape (annotation fields, ordering, pagination) and it does not. For a simple read-only list tool with strong annotations and 75% schema coverage this is serviceable, but the agent is left to infer the response format.
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 75%, so from/to and tags are already documented in the schema; the description restates the same filters ('time range', 'by tag') without adding format or semantics. The limit parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline 3 fits given 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (annotations), and adds a clarifying gloss '(events overlaid on graphs)' that tells the agent what an annotation actually is. The resource is distinct from every sibling (dashboards, folders, datasources, alert rules), so no explicit sibling routing is needed, but there is no active differentiation text.
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?
'optionally within a time range or by tag' implies the usage mode (unfiltered list vs filtered list) but never states when to reach for this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists. Usage is inferred rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.