Skip to main content
Glama

betterstack

by io.usefulapi

List incidents

list_incidents
Read-only

List incidents (alerts triggered by monitors/heartbeats), filterable by date range, monitor, and acknowledged/resolved state. Each incident carries cause, started_at, acknowledged_at, resolved_at. Uptime API: GET /api/v3/incidents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd date yyyy-mm-dd (inclusive).
fromNoStart date yyyy-mm-dd (inclusive).
pageNoPage number for pagination (default 1).
per_pageNoResults per page.
resolvedNotrue = only resolved, false = only unresolved.
team_nameNoFilter by team name (only when using a global API token).
monitor_idNoOnly incidents for this monitor id.
acknowledgedNotrue = only acknowledged, false = only unacknowledged.
heartbeat_idNoOnly incidents for this heartbeat id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that each incident carries cause, started_at, acknowledged_at, resolved_at, and mentions the API endpoint, giving good behavioral context beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes filters and output fields, with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description covers output fields (cause, timestamps) and filtering; pagination is implied but not explicit. For a listing tool, this is nearly complete.

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 summarizing filter categories but does not detail all 9 parameters (e.g., page, per_page, team_name, heartbeat_id are not explicitly mentioned).

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists incidents, defines incidents as alerts from monitors/heartbeats, and lists filtering options. It distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like acknowledge_incident and resolve_incident.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use cases by mentioning filters but does not explicitly contrast with siblings. It is clear enough given the tool name and sibling context.

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

All betterstack toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources