Skip to main content
Glama

pagerduty_list_oncalls

Read-onlyIdempotent

List current PagerDuty on-call users, optionally filtered by schedule or user ID, so you can see who is actively responding.

Instructions

List who is currently on-call in PagerDuty, optionally filtered by schedule or user.

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>"
    },
    "name": "pagerduty_list_oncalls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyYesPagerDuty API key
user_idsNoFilter by user ID
schedule_idsNoFilter by schedule ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'currently on-call' time semantics, which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or how many entries a single call returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the optional filters come after. Nothing to trim.

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 small 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate. With no output schema, though, it leaves the agent guessing what an entry contains (user, schedule, escalation policy) and whether results are paginated.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the two filters ('schedule or user'), adding no format, multi-value, or ID-source detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List who is currently on-call in PagerDuty') with the temporal qualifier 'currently', which distinguishes it from incident-oriented siblings like pagerduty_list_incidents. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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?

The phrase 'optionally filtered by schedule or user' implies how to narrow results, giving some usage context. However, there is no statement of when to use this instead of, e.g., listing schedules or services first, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required api_key in the schema.

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