Review recent event fires newest first, including how each was handled and its receipt; omit the trigger ID to view all triggers.
Recent fires, newest first, with how each was handled and the receipt. Leave out trigger_id to see all triggers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many fires to show (default 10, at most 100). | |
| trigger_id | No | The trigger id, as shown by trigger_list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those annotations: the result ordering (newest first), the grading information returned per fire, and the fact that omitting the id broadens scope to all triggers. It says nothing about retention window or result volume, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what you get and how it is ordered, followed by the scoping rule. No filler. The phrase "with how each was handled and the receipt" is slightly compressed jargon but stays within budget.
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-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, per-fire contents, and the optional-filter behavior, which is the information an agent needs to call it correctly. Gaps are minor: no retention window, and "receipt" is never explained, leaving the exact return payload partly opaque.
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 parameters are already documented, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: omitting the optional trigger_id is defined as "all triggers" rather than an error or empty result, and it cross-references trigger_list as the source of ids. Limit behavior is left entirely to the schema.
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 identifies a concrete resource (recent fires, i.e. trigger executions) and states the ordering (newest first) plus the payload shape (how each was handled and the receipt). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings such as trigger_report or trigger_get, which could also surface execution information.
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?
Usage is only implied: "Recent fires" signals this is for reviewing past executions, and "Leave out trigger_id to see all triggers" gives a scoping rule. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer trigger_report or trigger_get, and no note about how far back the history goes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.