List escalation policies with their filters and levels, optionally limited to active policies, to clarify alert routing and escalation paths. Requires Pro edition.
List all escalation policies with their filters and levels. Requires the Pro edition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active_only | Yes | Filter to active policies only |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the edition entitlement constraint, which is real supplemental context, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what happens if the edition requirement is unmet.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The phrase 'with their filters and levels' earns its place by describing return content, though it borders on verbosity.
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 simple one-parameter list tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the description supplies the key gating fact (Pro edition) and the returned fields. Missing only minor details like pagination or empty-result 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'active_only' is fully documented there. The description adds no filtering semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for schema-heavy coverage applies.
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 and resource ('List all escalation policies') plus what is returned ('their filters and levels'). It is not differentiated from the sibling get_escalation_policy, but the 'list all' phrasing implies a collection read versus a single-item fetch.
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 Pro-edition prerequisite is stated, which is useful gating information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_escalation_policy or set_escalation_policy_active, so selection guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.