redash-mcp

list_alerts

Read-only

Retrieve all configured alerts from Redash, including their current state and linked query details, to discover alert IDs for further actions.

Instructions

List all alerts configured in Redash. Behavior: returns an array where each alert has id, name, current state (ok / triggered / unknown), last_triggered_at, its linked query (id, name), and threshold options. Usage: use this to discover alert_ids, then call get_alert for one alert's full detail, or create_alert to add a new one.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by describing the return structure (array with id, name, state, last_triggered_at, query info, threshold options) beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first states the function, the second details the return structure and usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return structure and usage guidance adequately. It omits potential details like pagination or error handling, but for a simple list-all tool this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has no parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the return fields, which helps the agent understand what the tool outputs, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with 'List all alerts configured in Redash,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'get_alert' and 'create_alert', making the tool's purpose clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'use this to discover alert_ids, then call get_alert for one alert's full detail, or create_alert to add a new one.' This provides clear context for usage versus alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.