Operational overview of open alerts: counts by severity, by state, acknowledged vs not, and the top sources. Read-only.
Operational overview of open alerts: counts by severity, by state, acknowledged vs not, and the top sources. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_sources | No | How many sources to list (default 5, max 20) | |
| include_closed | No | Include Closed alerts in the counts (default false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description redundantly says 'Read-only.' It adds useful scope by clarifying that the summary is based on open alerts by default, but it does not cover auth needs, data freshness, or rate behavior.
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 definition is one front-loaded sentence plus a short 'Read-only' tag. It is efficient overall, though the read-only note repeats annotation information and does not add new value.
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 aggregate summary with no output schema, the description is mostly complete because it lists the counted dimensions and top sources. It could be stronger by stating when this overview is preferable to listing or retrieving individual alerts.
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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'top sources' and 'open alerts,' which loosely aligns with top_sources and include_closed, but adds no real syntax or default meaning beyond the schema.
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 names the resource (open alerts) and specifies the summary dimensions: severity counts, state counts, acknowledgement status, and top sources. It implicitly differentiates itself from list_alerts/get_alert by being an aggregate overview, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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?
'Operational overview' implies a dashboard-style use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or when to choose list_alerts, get_alert, or query_records instead. The usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.