resolve_incidentResolve an ongoing incident, marking it as handled/closed. Idempotent-ish: resolving an already-resolved incident returns HTTP 409. Uptime API: POST /api/v3/incidents/{id}/resolve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incident_id | Yes | The incident id to resolve (from list_incidents). | |
| resolved_by | Yes | User e-mail or a custom identifier of who is resolving the incident. |
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 provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds nuance about the 409 error for already-resolved incidents, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like authorization requirements or side effects.
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 highly informative sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by important behavioral context.
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 tool with only two required parameters and complete schema descriptions, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, idempotency, and the API endpoint.
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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (incident_id, resolved_by) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action 'Resolve an ongoing incident' using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'acknowledge_incident'.
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 explains the idempotency behavior and HTTP 409 response, which provides some usage guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'acknowledge_incident'.
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.