Acknowledge up to 100 alerts at once with an optional note to quickly clear multiple active alerts and reduce notification noise.
Acknowledge multiple alerts at once (max 100, requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Optional acknowledgment note | |
| alert_ids | Yes | Alert IDs (max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the max batch size and explicitly requiring write permission, which is valuable beyond the schema and annotations. It does not detail partial-failure behavior, but credit is earned for the disclosed constraints.
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 that states the core action first, followed by the batch limit and permission requirement. No filler 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 two-parameter mutation tool with complete schema coverage and annotations indicating write behavior, the description covers the essential invocation details: what is acted on, batch size, and required permission. It does not explain return values or partial success, but the tool's complexity is low and the existing metadata covers most operational context.
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 100%, so the schema already documents alert_ids and note adequately. The description's 'max 100' repeats the schema constraint and does not add new parameter-level meaning.
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?
Description states a specific action ('Acknowledge') on a specific resource ('multiple alerts') and adds a precise scope constraint ('max 100'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the single-alert sibling acknowledge_alert by emphasizing batch operation.
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 implies the use case—acknowledging multiple alerts at once—and provides the 100-alert limit and write-permission requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over acknowledge_alert or mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.