Retrieve all automated monitoring tests from Drata, optionally filtered by PASSED, FAILED, or NOT_TESTED status, to review compliance test results and status summaries.
List ALL automated monitoring tests.
Args: status: Filter - PASSED, FAILED, NOT_TESTED
Returns: List of monitoring tests with status summary
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the return shape in one phrase but discloses nothing about pagination, volume, auth/permission requirements, or ordering — significant gaps for a tool that enumerates all monitors.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the Args/Returns blocks are short. Mild waste in a 'Returns' line that restates what the output schema already provides.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return format needn't be spelled out, yet the description includes a redundant Returns line while omitting usage routing and behavioral context. Adequate for a trivial single-param list tool but with clear gaps.
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 0% and the schema defines status with no enum, so the description's 'PASSED, FAILED, NOT_TESTED' is genuinely additive — it supplies the allowed values the schema omits. It does not, however, explain behavior when status is omitted or null.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List ALL automated monitoring tests') with a clear scope qualifier ('ALL') that implicitly contrasts with the filtered sibling list_failing_monitors. However, it never names the sibling or explains how this differs from get_monitors_for_control, so differentiation must be inferred.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Given siblings like list_failing_monitors and get_monitors_for_control, an agent would benefit from knowing this is the unfiltered full enumeration, but the description leaves that to inference ('ALL' is the only hint).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.