Retrieve currently active scheduled downtimes (SDTs) from LogicMonitor, filtering by device ID or group ID to identify which resources are in maintenance windows.
Get currently active SDTs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| device_id | No | Filter by device ID | |
| device_group_id | No | Filter by group ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only the 'currently active' scoping constraint, which is arguably part of the purpose. It does not disclose additional behavior such as return format, pagination, or how 'active' is defined, but this is minor given the annotations.
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, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource and adds the essential qualifier. For a simple read tool of this nature, this level of conciseness is appropriate and not under-specified to the point of being confusing (unlike a bare 'Process').
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 read-only tool with three optional, well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explicitly confirm the return type (e.g., a list of SDT objects) or distinguish itself from closely related siblings like list_sdts and get_upcoming_sdts. Given the availability of those siblings, a bit more context would help the agent make the right selection.
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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (limit, device_id, device_group_id). The description adds no additional information about these parameters or their semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to repeat it.
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 'Get currently active SDTs' has a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SDTs') with a clear qualifier ('currently active') that distinguishes it from siblings like get_upcoming_sdts and list_sdts. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives, so an agent must infer the differentiation. Overall, the purpose is clear and not tautological.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus list_sdts or get_upcoming_sdts. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for selecting this tool. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to guess which of the many SDT-related tools is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.