Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pagerlane MCP Connector

Pagerlane MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

keep_get_alert

Read-only

Retrieve a single Keep alert by its fingerprint to inspect alert details and support incident triage.

Instructions

Get one alert by fingerprint. GET /alerts/{fingerprint}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fingerprint": "<fingerprint>"
    },
    "name": "keep_get_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fingerprintYesKeep alert fingerprint.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for a missing fingerprint, no indication of what the response contains, and the 'GET /alerts/{fingerprint}' line merely restates the operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. The second sentence restating the HTTP route is largely redundant with the tool name and adds little, but the overall size is appropriate for a simple getter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any hint about the returned alert shape or failure mode, which would help an agent decide how to handle the result, but nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Keep alert fingerprint.' The description only echoes that the fingerprint identifies the alert, adding no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one alert by fingerprint'), which clearly separates it from sibling list/search tools like keep_list_alerts and keep_search_alerts. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the singular 'one alert' scope is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the single-record fetch when a fingerprint is known, versus the list/search siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of what to do if the fingerprint is unknown.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools