Fetch detected anomalies and crashes from the broker, optionally from the last N seconds, to diagnose hardware faults during serial or debug sessions.
Get detected anomalies/crashes from the broker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seconds | No | If > 0, only return incidents from the last N seconds. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the useful fact that incidents are sourced "from the broker" and are pre-detected, but says nothing about ordering, caps, or empty-result 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 sentence with no filler and the verb front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a single-parameter read tool, though the trailing "from the broker" is mildly ambiguous.
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?
A simple read with one fully documented optional parameter and annotations covering safety. With no output schema, the description could have said what an incident record contains and whether results are bounded, so it is adequate but leaves a real gap.
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%, so the single optional 'seconds' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filtering syntax or default behavior beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 clear verb+resource combination: retrieve detected anomalies/crashes. The scope word "detected" implies pre-filtered incidents rather than raw output, which usefully separates it from serial_read and serial_output_history. However, it never names a sibling or explains how it differs from those log-oriented 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this instead of serial_output_history or serial_generate_report when investigating a crash.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.