list_heartbeatsRetrieve and filter Rootly heartbeats with pagination, search, and date criteria to monitor service health and incident signals.
List heartbeats
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| filter_name | No | ||
| filter_slug | No | ||
| page_number | No | ||
| filter_search | No | ||
| filter_created_at_gt | No | ||
| filter_created_at_lt | No | ||
| filter_created_at_gte | No | ||
| filter_created_at_lte | 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - no mention of pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or result shape that the annotations don't already imply.
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?
Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness; the single phrase is front-loaded but carries almost no information.
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?
With 10 undocumented parameters, no annotations adding context, and an output schema to lean on but no explanation of filtering or inclusion behavior, the description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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?
There are 10 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, including non-obvious ones like 'include', 'filter_search', and four date-bound variants. The description must compensate but says nothing, leaving the agent guessing 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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 versus get_heartbeat, create_heartbeat, or the many other list_* siblings. An agent gets no help distinguishing retrieval contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.