Run all enabled alert checks on demand with read-only queries and return the updated state, so you can refresh SingleStore alert status without waiting.
Run every enabled check now (read-only queries) and return the new state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description's '(read-only queries)' largely restates structured data. It does add that all enabled checks are triggered and that the new state is returned, but says nothing about cost, duration, rate limits, or whether it modifies alert state.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the key action ('Run every enabled check now') is front-loaded before the read-only qualifier and the return value.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential behavior. Return values need not be enumerated since no output schema exists, though a note on expected latency or side effects on alert state would have made it fully complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-param tool.
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 and resource: run every enabled check now and return the new state, including the read-only nature of the queries. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like alerts_update or alerts_ack.
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?
The phrase 'Run every enabled check now' implies forcing an immediate refresh versus waiting for scheduled checks, which is a useful usage cue. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance relative to alerts, alerts_data, or alerts_update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.