squadcast_list_incident_notesList the war-room notes on a single incident. Squadcast: GET /v3/incidents/{IncidentId}/warroom.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incidentId | Yes | The incident id (required). |
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=true, so description doesn't need to repeat. Adds endpoint detail and scope ('on a single incident'). 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, no wasted words. Purpose front-loaded. Highly concise.
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 list tool with one required parameter and readOnly annotation, description covers essentials. Could optionally mention output format but not required.
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 coverage 100% with description 'The incident id (required).' Description adds no further context or constraints beyond schema. Baseline score 3.
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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'war-room notes on a single incident' with API endpoint. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like squadcast_add_incident_note (write) and squadcast_get_incident (different resource).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives (e.g., for writing notes use add_incident_note). Implicit usage is clear but not differentiated.
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-action pair, such as incident actions, services, teams, users, schedules, etc. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'squadcast_verb_noun' in snake_case. Verbs are always first (e.g., acknowledge, add, get, list, resolve), making naming predictable.
With 16 tools, the server covers key incident management operations and supporting resources without being overly numerous or sparse. The scope is well-calibrated.
The toolset covers essential incident lifecycle actions (acknowledge, resolve, add notes, list/get incidents) and supporting resources. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of create/update for non-incident entities, but these are not critical for the primary incident response workflow.