List incident summaries with filters for status, severity, team, and user to quickly identify unresolved issues.
List incidents as compact summaries. Use get_incident for the full timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| statuses | No | e.g. Open, Resolved | |
| team_ids | No | ||
| user_ids | No | ||
| severities | No | e.g. Critical, Warning, Minor | |
| unattended | No | Only incidents nobody took | |
| search_term | No | ||
| created_from | No | ISO-8601 UTC |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is established. The description adds that results are compact summaries rather than full incident objects, which is a useful behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, defaulting, or what fields a compact summary contains.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action and output shape come first, and the sibling pointer is placed second without unnecessary elaboration.
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 read-only list tool, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient to select and invoke it, and the pointer to get_incident clarifies scope. However, with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of pagination or compact-summary contents, some context is still missing.
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 only 44%, and several parameters such as team_ids, user_ids, and search_term are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 action ('List') and resource ('incidents'), and immediately characterizes the response shape ('compact summaries'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_incident by explicitly deferring full timelines there.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent to use get_incident when a full timeline is needed, which defines the boundary between the two incident tools. It doesn't exhaustively cover alternatives, but the relevant sibling comparison is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.