Skip to main content
Glama

add_incident_note

Write a plain-words diagnosis on an incident so the paged reader sees what failed, whether it repeats, and what you did—not just a timestamp.

Instructions

Write back, in your own words, what you found out about an incident — so the person who gets paged reads a diagnosis instead of a timestamp: 'failed because the upstream API returned 503; same failure as the last three nights; I retried twice and stopped' instead of 'check failed at 03:04'. The note appears on the incident's page in the dashboard, attributed to its author, in the order it was written. Take incident_id from list_open_incidents. SEND A NOTE WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD FIX THE PROBLEM. The person reading the alert cannot see what you saw. With no note, an incident is indistinguishable from one nobody has looked at yet, so an agent that writes back only its successes leaves a record worse than none: every unexplained incident then reads as 'not looked at yet' when it may equally mean 'looked at and gave up'. 'Could not reproduce; gave up after two attempts' IS a finding and is worth writing. NOTES ARE APPEND-ONLY. There is no way to edit a note and no way to delete one — not merely unexposed: no route and no query exists for either, and an edit is refused by the database itself. A correction is a new note, never an edit, because a diagnosis whose history a reader cannot trust is not evidence. This is NOT a write-once resource: a second, third or tenth note on the same incident is normal and expected, and there is no conflict for writing one. The only conflict this tool has is the cap of 50 notes per incident, and reaching it means something is looping rather than diagnosing. A CLOSED incident still accepts notes, on purpose: the run that finally succeeded is usually the one that understood why the previous one did not, so refusing the note would lose the explanation exactly when it became available. Authorship is not yours to choose — every note written through this tool is stored as author 'agent', because this is the API-key surface; there is no author argument and supplying one is not possible.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe diagnosis, in plain words and one or two sentences: what actually failed, whether it is the same failure as before (compare failure_signature.occurrences from list_open_incidents), and what you did about it. Must not be empty or whitespace-only, and must be at most 8192 bytes. An oversized body is REJECTED, never truncated — a truncated diagnosis reads as a complete one that trails off, and the reader cannot tell that the sentence naming the cause was the one cut — so shorten it and call again. A pasted stack trace is a note nobody reads: the full failure output already lives on the run that produced it.
incident_idYesThe incident's numeric id, taken straight from an entry's incident_id in list_open_incidents. An integer, not a UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing append-only behavior, the impossibility of editing or deleting notes, forced author attribution as 'agent', acceptance of notes on closed incidents, the 50-note cap, and the non-idempotent nature of the operation. This richly covers behavioral traits annotations alone do not express. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

The description is long, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and every paragraph addresses a distinct behavioral or usage concern. It is justifiably detailed given the append-only and attribution requirements, though it could be tightened without losing value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with this level of behavioral complexity and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers success expectations, conflict behavior, closed-incident handling, author attribution, content requirements, and failure handling for oversized bodies, leaving no major ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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%, so the schema already fully documents body and incident_id. The tool description does reinforce the source of incident_id and the preferred note style, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('write back'), a specific resource (incident notes), and the core action: recording findings on an incident's page. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like list_open_incidents and list_incidents by focusing on adding a note rather than reading incident data.

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 is explicit about when to use this tool: after investigating an incident, using incident_id from list_open_incidents, and sending a note whether or not the problem was fixed. It also gives strong guidance about what not to do, such as omitting notes or pasting stack traces, and clarifies that multiple notes on the same incident are expected and valid.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tp322d/lastping-app'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server