Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pagerduty_get_incident

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches details for a single PagerDuty incident by ID and API key, enabling review of incident status and metadata.

Instructions

Get details for a single PagerDuty incident by ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "api_key": "<api_key>",
      "incident_id": "<incident_id>"
    },
    "name": "pagerduty_get_incident"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyYesPagerDuty API key
incident_idYesIncident ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.9
  2. Removed
  3. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose sentence — no note on required API key/permissions, what happens with an invalid or unknown incident ID, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented 2-param schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It leaves unstated what the returned incident detail contains and whether a missing ID yields an error, but with no output schema and complete annotations those gaps are modest.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so schema detail already carries the load. The description's 'by ID' only confirms that incident_id is the lookup key and says nothing about api_key or the ID format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a single PagerDuty incident'), and the word 'single' plus 'by ID' implicitly separates it from pagerduty_list_incidents. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally discriminating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it already has an incident ID rather than a filter. There is no explicit 'use this instead of pagerduty_list_incidents when...' guidance and no stated prerequisites beyond the ID.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools