Fetch incident signals for a specific instance and request ID to support read-only OpenStack investigations.
Return signals only for the specified instance/request pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | ||
| instance_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden. The word "only" hints at a scoped subset of data, but there is no disclosure of permissions, rate limits, or how incomplete data is handled, and no output schema is needed here but the description still says nothing useful about behavior.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and there are no annotations to contradict. Still, for a read tool with two undocumented params, the description leaves an agent guessing what it actually retrieves and when it applies.
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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It names the "instance/request pair," which loosely maps to the two required params, but adds no format, ID provenance, or constraints.
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 verb ("Return") and a scope (specific instance/request pair), but "signals" is undefined and does not match the tool name's promise of an "instance summary." It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_timeline or get_case_memory.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. It never says when to prefer this over get_timeline or get_case_memory, nor what preconditions (e.g., a known request_id) must hold.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.