list_alerts_sourcesList and filter alert sources to identify where alerts originate, with options for status, source type, enabled state, sorting, and pagination.
List alert sources
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| filter_name | No | ||
| page_number | No | ||
| filter_search | No | ||
| filter_enabled | No | ||
| filter_statuses | No | ||
| filter_source_types | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of that — no note on pagination defaults, result volume, or filter combination behavior for a 9-parameter listing endpoint.
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?
It is a single short phrase, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded scope or useful content at all.
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 9-parameter, open-world listing tool with zero schema coverage, the description provides no information needed to call it correctly. An output schema exists so returns need not be explained, but the input side is completely bare.
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?
Nine parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. Filter fields (filter_name, filter_statuses, filter_source_types, filter_enabled) and pagination/sort controls are entirely undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent to guess at semantics.
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?
"List alert sources" merely restates the tool name and title without adding a verb nuance or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_alerts_source, create_alerts_source, or update_alerts_source beyond the word "list".
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of pagination, filtering strategy, or relationship to the single-source get_alerts_source sibling. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.