Observability Agent MCP

observability.active_alerts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve normalized metadata for active alerts filtered by state, service, and severity.

Instructions

Return normalized active alert metadata.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "observability.active_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`states`	No
`services`	No
`severities`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`freshness`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`observedAt`	Yes
`providerClass`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes
`redactionsApplied`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1Jul 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / providerClass / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "fake",
-  "grafana",
-  "prometheus-compatible",
-  "composite"
-]New value: +[
+  "fake",
+  "grafana",
+  "prometheus-compatible",
+  "grafana-alertmanager",
+  "composite"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds only 'normalized,' which lacks specificity about behavior or data scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While the description is very short (one sentence), it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. Important details about parameters and output are omitted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 optional filter parameters and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description should explain what 'normalized' means and how filters apply. It lacks essential context for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% with 3 parameters, but the description mentions none of them. The schema defines filters (states, services, severities) but the description provides no explanation, leaving the agent to infer meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Return normalized active alert metadata,' which clearly indicates the tool retrieves alert data. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like incident_context or health_snapshot, and 'normalized' is ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., query_metrics or incident_context). The description provides no context for suitable use cases or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server