Retrieve LogicMonitor alert rules to inspect monitoring conditions. Use the limit parameter to cap the number of returned rules.
List alert rules
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results |
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'List', such as pagination behavior or whether system-level versus user-level rules are included.
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 extremely efficient, using three words to convey the core operation. While there is no wasted text, it lacks any supporting context or structure that could enhance clarity.
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 list operation with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is largely complete enough for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema is not critical here, though mentioning that limit is the only control would be slightly more complete.
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 has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (limit, described as 'Max results'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('alert rules'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_alert_rule, relying on pluralization rather than explicit distinction.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus get_alert_rule or other alert-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.