Remove all alerts or only acknowledged ones from the alert list to clear notifications and manage alert states.
Remove alerts from the list (all, or only the acknowledged ones).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| acknowledged_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered structurally. The description adds the all-vs-acknowledged scope, but it never says whether a cleared alert is gone permanently or merely hidden from the list, nor whether the clearance is server-side or view-only — the one behavioral question an agent actually has here. The "Remove" wording also sits in tension with destructiveHint=false and is never reconciled.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the scope qualifier in parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but it is structurally clean.
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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose and parameter meaning adequately. It is missing the durability/irreversibility note, which is the one piece of context an agent would want before invoking a removal operation.
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 must carry the parameter. It does: "all, or only the acknowledged ones" fully explains what acknowledged_only=true vs false (the default) means, which is the only parameter. It stops short of naming it, but the semantics are unambiguous.
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 gives a specific verb ("Remove") and resource ("alerts from the list"), and the parenthetical clarifies the scope of the removal. It is clear on its own, but it makes no reference to any sibling (e.g., alerts_ack, alerts_update), so an agent gets no help distinguishing this from the other alert-mutating tools.
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 parenthetical "all, or only the acknowledged ones" hints at the two operating modes, but there is no guidance on when to clear versus acknowledge (alerts_ack) or update (alerts_update), nor any statement of preconditions. The agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.