Creates a structured incident ticket payload for network operations, capturing the failing OSI layer, target, severity, and summary to enable prompt escalation and remediation.
Creates a structured operational incident ticket payload for escalation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| severity | No | medium | |
| failing_layer | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Creates a structured operational incident ticket payload', which is ambiguous about whether it actually creates a ticket or just a payload, and doesn't mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any constraints.
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 (one sentence), but it's under-specified. It doesn't front-load critical usage information and is too short to be adequately informative for a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description doesn't explain what the tool returns or how the payload is used. With no parameter details, no usage context, and no behavioral notes, the agent lacks essential information to call this tool correctly.
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 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the four parameters (target, summary, severity, failing_layer). The agent has no guidance on their meaning, format, or constraints, making correct invocation guesswork.
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 states a specific verb 'Creates' and a resource 'operational incident ticket payload', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like query_incident_history. However, it lacks specificity about what 'payload' entails and doesn't mention the target system, so it's clear but not fully detailed.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for escalation' hints at a use case, but it doesn't specify conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.