list_endpointsDiscover all available Rootly API endpoints and their descriptions to identify the correct API for incident management tasks.
List all available Rootly API endpoints with their descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "_WrappedResult",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv1.0.0Does 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 fully covered without description help. The only added value is the hint that entries include descriptions; nothing is said about result size, format, or whether the list is exhaustive/static.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the title beyond the minimum needed to state scope.
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 zero-parameter read-only enumeration with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly and know roughly what comes back. Only the shape/volume of the returned endpoint list is unspecified, which is a minor 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or paging inputs are needed.
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 ('List') and resource ('Rootly API endpoints') plus what each entry carries ('with their descriptions'). It is clearly distinguishable from the domain-specific list_* siblings because it enumerates the API surface itself, though it never explicitly frames itself as a discovery/meta tool.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this is a discovery tool rather than a data-listing tool like list_incidents or list_services, which is exactly the confusion this description should preempt given the crowded sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.