kite-connect-mcp

One alert

get_alert

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single alert by UUID to view its type, name, status, condition, alert count, and ATO basket details.

Instructions

One alert by its uuid: type, name, status, condition, alert_count and, for an ato alert, its basket.

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "get_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uuid`	Yes	the alert's uuid (see get_alerts)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's added value is limited to naming the returned fields and the conditional 'basket' element for ato alerts; it says nothing about error/not-found behaviour or freshness of the data.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list is informative rather than redundant. It is slightly telegraphic, which costs a little readability but nothing in efficiency.

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?

For a trivial single-parameter read with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient because it enumerates the returned fields and the conditional basket. The only meaningful omission is what happens when the uuid does not resolve.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a uuid regex pattern and a pointer to get_alerts, so the schema does all the work. The description only restates 'by its uuid' and adds no format, sourcing, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

The description names a specific verb-and-resource pair ('One alert by its uuid') and enumerates what comes back (type, name, status, condition, alert_count, basket for ato alerts), so an agent can tell it fetches a single alert rather than a list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_alerts / get_alert_history, which would have made the differentiation airtight.

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: you need an existing uuid to call it, and the schema's 'see get_alerts' hints at where that comes from, but the description itself states no when-to-use condition, no alternative tools, and no behaviour for an unknown uuid.

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