list_retrospective_processesRetrieve retrospective processes from Rootly, including optional steps, severities, incident types, and groups, to review or manage incident retrospectives.
List retrospective processes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | comma separated if needed. eg: retrospective_steps,severities | |
| page_size | No | ||
| page_number | 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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior, ordering, whether the list is workspace-scoped, or how the `include` expansion affects response size or latency.
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 sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity is the result of under-specification rather than disciplined editing, and there is no structure to front-load.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a paginated list endpoint with an enum expansion parameter the description should still say what is listed and how paging works. Nothing about scope, ordering, or the effect of `include` is covered, leaving an agent to guess.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33% — only `include` is documented (in the schema itself, not the description), while `page_size` and `page_number` have no semantics anywhere. The description contributes zero parameter meaning and does not compensate for the low coverage, including no hint about valid range for page_size or 0/1-based page numbering.
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 call this versus get_retrospective_process (single-item lookup) or the related retrospective step/group tools in the sibling list. The only implied usage is that it enumerates rather than fetches one, which the name alone already conveys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.