Acknowledge an alert in LogicMonitor by providing its alert ID (with or without LMA prefix) and an optional note.
Acknowledge an alert (requires write permission)
Common mistakes: alert_id works with or without the LMA prefix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Optional acknowledgment note | |
| alert_id | Yes | Alert ID (with or without LMA prefix) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by requiring write permission, which helps an agent anticipate authorization failures.
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?
Two compact sentences front-load the core action, then add the single most likely input pitfall. There is no unrelated detail or redundancy.
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 simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description plus annotations and schema are sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It could mention what the response looks like, but that is not essential for invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents alert_id and note. The description's LMA-prefix guidance is helpful, but it merely restates what the schema says, so it adds no new semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Acknowledge an alert." The singular scope implicitly distinguishes it from sibling bulk_acknowledge_alerts, and the action is unmistakable.
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?
The description communicates a prerequisite (write permission) and a common mistake about the alert_id format, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over related siblings such as bulk_acknowledge_alerts or add_alert_note. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.