get_incidentGet a single incident by id, including cause, status, timeline timestamps (started/acknowledged/resolved), who acknowledged/resolved it, and the related monitor. Uptime API: GET /api/v3/incidents/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incident_id | Yes | The incident id (from list_incidents). |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by detailing exactly which fields are returned (cause, status, timestamps, etc.), and confirms it's a read operation with the API endpoint. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence packs purpose and returned fields; second adds the API endpoint. Front-loaded with critical info.
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?
For a simple, single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and how to use it. No gaps.
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?
Only one parameter (incident_id) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds helpful context that the id comes from list_incidents, going beyond the schema's basic description.
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?
Description clearly states it gets a single incident by id and lists returned fields (cause, status, timeline, who acknowledged/resolved, monitor). Distinguishes from siblings like list_incidents (plural) and acknowledge/resolve (mutations).
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?
Explicitly says to get a single incident by id. Context of siblings provides alternatives, but no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions are stated.
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 distinct resource or action: monitors, heartbeats, incidents, on-call schedules, and status pages are clearly separated. Incident actions (list, get, acknowledge, resolve) are unambiguous with no overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_monitors, get_incident, acknowledge_incident). The naming is predictable and easy to follow.
With 9 tools covering the primary aspects of uptime monitoring and incident management, the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being excessive.
The tool set covers reading and incident lifecycle management well, but lacks any create/update/delete operations for monitors, heartbeats, or status pages. This is a notable gap for a comprehensive monitoring platform, though the core incident workflow is covered.