rootcause-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rc_start_session

Start a root cause analysis session for clinical incidents. Specify case type and title to receive a session ID for subsequent analysis steps.

Instructions

Start a new RCA analysis session. Creates a new session with the specified case type and title. Returns session_id for subsequent operations.

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": {
      "case_type": "<case_type>",
      "case_title": "<case_title>"
    },
    "name": "rc_start_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`case_type`	Yes	Type of case being analyzed
`case_title`	Yes	Brief title for the case
`initial_description`	No	Initial description of the incident

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose side effects and behaviors. It only states 'creates a new session' without mentioning auth requirements, potential conflicts, or whether the session is persisted. Minimal transparency for a creation 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 sentences, no wasted words. Could be slightly improved with structured format (e.g., listing return value separately), but overall concise and clear.

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?

Explains return value despite no output schema, but missing details on error cases, validation rules for case_type enum, and what happens if required fields are missing. Adequate but not complete for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning return of session_id, but does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states it starts a new RCA analysis session with specified case type and title, and returns session_id. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like rc_list_sessions or rc_get_session.

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?

Implied usage as the initial step for RCA analysis, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like rc_list_sessions or rc_archive_session. No exclusion criteria provided.

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