Retrieve and inspect active Prometheus alerts to monitor firing and pending alert states. Use it to check alert status and respond to issues in your monitoring environment.
Get information about alerts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get information'), but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 description is a single, concise sentence ('Get information about alerts'), which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it is not front-loaded with critical details like purpose differentiation or usage context, and the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context such as what 'alerts' refer to in this system, how the information is returned, or how it relates to sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to explain the tool's role and behavior.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is applied as the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, though it could theoretically mention the absence of parameters.
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 'Get information about alerts' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-alerts' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get') and the resource type ('alerts'), it lacks specificity about what kind of alert information is retrieved or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get-rules' or 'get-status'. This makes it vague and unhelpful for distinguishing purpose.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools such as 'get-rules' or 'instant-query' that might handle related functions. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.