Add a note to a LogicMonitor alert without changing its acknowledgement status. Requires write permission to document context directly on the alert.
Add a note to an alert without acknowledging (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | Note text to add | |
| 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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly says the tool does not acknowledge the alert and requires write permission. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, so this extra information is valuable.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the key behavioral distinction, and the permission requirement. Every word earns its place with no 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 mutation tool, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it does, what it does not do, and the permission needed. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists, and the operation is straightforward.
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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the alert ID prefix flexibility. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a note to an alert.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'without acknowledging,' which separates it from acknowledge_alert and similar tools.
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 phrase 'without acknowledging' gives clear context for when to use this tool versus an acknowledgment action, while 'requires write permission' sets an important prerequisite. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.