Acknowledge an active alert by ID to stop escalation and record who responded. Use it to prevent further notifications in Maintenant monitoring workflows.
Acknowledge an active alert so it stops escalating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alert_id | Yes | Alert ID to acknowledge | |
| acknowledged_by | No | Who is acknowledging the alert (defaults to 'mcp') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key side effect that escalation halts, which is the main behavioral fact. However it omits idempotency, required permissions, whether acknowledging an inactive alert errors, and what the response 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, leading with the action and ending with the effect. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.
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 mutation with no output schema, explaining the purpose and the escalation-stopping effect is largely sufficient. The remaining gap is operational guidance on where alert_id comes from and error/precondition behavior.
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% and both parameters are already described in the schema, including the 'mcp' default for acknowledged_by. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for alert_id, so the schema does all the work.
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 verb (acknowledge) and resource (active alert) plus the operational consequence (stops escalating), which no sibling tool duplicates. An agent can distinguish it from list_alerts or update_incident without opening any schema.
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 "active alert" implies the precondition, but the description never says how to locate an alert_id (e.g., via list_alerts) nor what to do if the alert is already resolved or already acknowledged. No alternatives or exclusions are named among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.