Retrieve active vManage alarms and filter them by site ID to help identify network issues quickly.
List active alarms from vManage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of alarms to return (default 100) | |
| site_id | No | Only alarms for this site ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. It does not disclose pagination behavior, the default/limit semantics beyond what the schema says, ordering, or the fact that this is a read-only fetch. Only the word 'active' hints at filtering 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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse rather than padded — the issue is under-specification, not verbosity.
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?
A simple read tool with only optional parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say something about what an alarm record looks like or that results are a capped list. As written it leaves the return shape entirely unknown.
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 already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case rather than a gain.
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?
Specific verb + resource ('List active alarms') plus the source system (vManage), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, relate itself to any sibling tool — though in this sibling set no other alarm-related tool exists, so the ambiguity risk is low.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no note on what 'active' excludes (cleared/acknowledged alarms). The agent must infer everything about scope selection from the word 'active'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.