list_recent_alertsAlert notifications (up/down transitions) over a date range. Defaults to last 30 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ISO end date. Default: now. | |
| from | No | ISO start date. Default: 30 days ago. | |
| resolution | No | Time grouping. Default "day". | |
| monitor_uuids | No | Restrict to these monitor UUIDs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and defaults, omitting critical traits such as whether the result is paginated, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This leaves the agent underinformed.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and default behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 has 4 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks any mention of return format, pagination behavior, or caveats, leaving the agent without key execution context for a list operation.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only rephrases the date range default. The schema already documents each parameter adequately.
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 clearly states the tool lists alert notifications (up/down transitions) over a date range, with a specific default of last 30 days. It uniquely identifies the resource and action among sibling tools, which lack an alert-listing counterpart.
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 implies usage for retrieving alerts over a date range with a default period, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a specific resource or action (monitor, outage, escalation policy, etc.) with clear naming. No two tools could be easily confused; even similar ones like get_monitor_outages and get_monitor_anomalies serve distinct purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, pause_, resume_, search_, update_) and use snake_case uniformly. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 26 tools, the set is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, but each tool serves a distinct monitoring function (monitors, outages, escalations, integrations, schedules, alerts, team members). The count is reasonable for the domain.
The tool surface is heavily read-oriented, lacking create/update/delete for most resource types (escalation policies, integrations, on-call schedules, outages). Even monitors lack a delete tool. This leaves significant gaps for administrative workflows.