signoz-explaining-alerts

name	signoz-explaining-alerts
description	Describe what an existing SigNoz alert rule does in plain language: the signal it watches, the threshold and evaluation behavior, the notification routing, and a one-line fire-frequency summary so the user knows whether the alert has been active. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user asks "what does this alert do", "explain alert X", "walk me through this rule", "how does my [Y] alert work", "is this alert configured correctly", or otherwise asks for an interpretation of an existing alert's configuration. Static explanation only; for diagnosing a specific firing incident, use `signoz-investigating-alerts`.
argument-hint	<alert name or rule id>

Alert Explain

Decode an existing SigNoz alert's configuration into a plain-language explanation. The skill is read-only and stays focused on the rule itself: what it watches, when it fires, where it notifies. A single line of fire-frequency data is included to ground the explanation, but this skill does not investigate any specific fire; that is signoz-investigating-alerts's job.

Prerequisites

This skill calls SigNoz MCP server tools (signoz_get_alert, signoz_list_alert_rules, signoz_get_alert_history). Before running the workflow, confirm the signoz_* tools are available. If they are not, run signoz-mcp-setup first to initialize or repair the MCP connection. Do not guess at alert configuration from the rule name alone.

When to use

Use this skill when the user wants to:

• Understand or interpret an existing alert rule.
• Confirm what signal an alert watches and at what threshold.
• Audit whether an alert is reasonably configured.
• Translate raw alert JSON into operational language.

Do NOT use when the user wants to:

• Create a new alert → signoz-creating-alerts.
• Diagnose why an alert fired or correlate signals around a fire window → signoz-investigating-alerts.
• Modify an existing alert → call signoz_update_alert directly.

Required inputs

Input	Required	Source if missing
Alert identifier (rule ID or name)	yes	$ARGUMENTS, recent context, or fuzzy match

If the input is missing or ambiguous, this skill is best-effort (not strict; read-only operations are cheap to recover from):

1. Call signoz_list_alert_rules, paginate through every page, and find the closest name match.
2. State the interpretation in the response: "Interpreting your request as alert 'High Error Rate - Checkout' (id 42). If you meant a different one, tell me the name or id."
3. Proceed with the explanation. The user can correct after.

Workflow

Step 1: Resolve the alert

If the user provided a rule ID (UUID or legacy numeric ID), skip to Step 2. Otherwise:

1. Call signoz_list_alert_rules and paginate every page: pagination.hasMore is true until the full list is walked.
2. Match by name (case-insensitive substring). If multiple match, present the candidates and ask which one (interactive) or pick the closest and flag the assumption (autonomous).

Step 2: Fetch the full configuration

Call signoz_get_alert with the rule id. This is mandatory: the list response does not include the full condition / thresholds / notification settings, and explanations based on the name alone are guesses.

Step 3: Pull a one-line fire-frequency summary

First call signoz_get_alert_history with timeRange: "7d", state: "firing", order: "desc", and a large limit. Continue only when data.nextCursor exists (the completeness note also reports hasMore: true): pass that value as cursor, replace timeRange with the note's resolved absolute start and end, and preserve the same state, filter, and order. Stop when nextCursor is absent / the note reports hasMore: false. Never use offset or infer completeness from page fullness. History state accepts inactive, pending, recovering, firing, nodata, or disabled. For "resolved" / "recovered", use state: "inactive"; resolved is not a value; recovering is a transient keep-firing state, not resolution. Derive a single rule-level line from the complete set. History rows are emitted per label-group fingerprint, so never equate row count with alert-fire count. Count distinct rule transitions where overallStateChanged: true and overallState: "firing" (deduplicate rows from the same transition timestamp):

Fired N times in the last 7d (last fire: ).

If the user asks about a particular service/host/group instead, partition by fingerprint and count that series' rows where stateChanged: true and state: "firing"; include its labels and call the result a series fire, not a rule-wide fire. A grouped rule can have many series transitions while the overall rule remains continuously firing.

If the alert never fired in the window, say so explicitly: "Has not fired in the last 7d." If the alert is disabled, mention that separately; disabled rules can still have earlier fires in the lookback.

This single line grounds the explanation. Do not drill into specific fires here; that's signoz-investigating-alerts.

Step 4: Build the explanation

The single most useful thing for the user is a tight summary. Lead with a TL;DR that directly answers the question they asked, not a generic alert summary. The TL;DR is the only thing some users will read; burying their answer under a fixed template forces them to scroll for what they wanted in the first place.

Match the TL;DR shape to the user's question:

• "What does this alert do?" / "Explain X": describe what fires:

  TL;DR: Fires when <condition> for <scope>, notifies <channel>. <fire-frequency line>.

• "Is it configured correctly?" / "Audit this" / "Anything I should change?": lead with the verdict and the top 1–3 changes, not the description of what fires:

  TL;DR: Mostly well-configured, but recommend: (1) add alertOnAbsent (currently a crashed service stays silent); (2) fix annotation template {{$topic}} → {{$labels.topic}} (won't interpolate); (3) split critical to PagerDuty (both tiers currently route to Slack). <fire-frequency line>.

• "How does X work?" / "Explain the count guard": answer the mechanism in 1–2 sentences before any framing:

  TL;DR: The count guard is a having: count() > 50 clause on query A: any 1-minute bucket with ≤50 spans is dropped before evaluation, so low-traffic minutes can't fire the alert.

• "What's the threshold?" / focused config question: state the exact thing they asked about:

  TL;DR: Threshold is 3 standard deviations (z-score), not a raw rate value. Daily seasonality means the model compares each hour against historical norms for that hour.

Always include the fire-frequency line and disabled status if non-default; those ground every kind of TL;DR. But put the answer to the user's specific question first.

After the TL;DR, write the explanation in prose, organized into the four sections below. Skip any section that has nothing meaningful to add: empty severity labels, default notification settings, vanilla annotations don't deserve a header. Short and skimmable beats perfunctorily complete; the user is not reading a checklist.

1. What it watches: one short paragraph. Combine signal type (metrics / logs / traces / exceptions), what the query measures, and scope. Translate the query to operational language; for formulas, name each sub-query (A, B, …) and state what F1 (or whichever selectedQueryName triggers) computes, e.g. "F1 = A × 100 / B → error percentage". Decode filter operators (= equals, != not equals, IN / NOT IN, LIKE / ILIKE, CONTAINS, REGEXP, EXISTS / NOT EXISTS); enumerate IN / NOT IN value lists so the user can verify them. Name each groupBy dimension and its practical effect ("fires separately per service" for service.name).

For anomaly rules (ruleType: anomaly_rule), explicitly state that the threshold is in standard deviations from the learned pattern, not the raw value; this is the most common point of confusion. Include algorithm (standard, which is z-score based), seasonality (hourly / daily / weekly), and how lower/higher targets shift sensitivity (lower → more noise, higher → only extreme deviations).

2. When it fires: one paragraph covering threshold + timing. Decode the threshold spec into plain English using these mappings:

• op codes: 1 above, 2 below, 3 equal, 4 not equal, 5 above-or-equal, 6 below-or-equal, 7 outside-bounds (outside_bounds in payloads).
• matchType codes: 1 at_least_once (any point in window), 2 all_the_times (entire window), 3 on_average (window average), 4 in_total (window sum), 5 last (most recent point).

State each threshold tier's name, target, targetUnit, and attached channels. Always state the threshold in targetUnit, not the native query unit (e.g. "fires when p99 exceeds 500 ms", not "…exceeds 500 000 000 ns"). Note recoveryTarget if set (hysteresis); if absent, mention flap risk when the value hovers near the boundary. Describe timing as "checks every <frequency> over the last <evalWindow>", and mention that with at_least_once a single-point breach triggers, while all_the_times requires the full window.

3. Where it notifies: decode effective routing, not just fields in isolation. If notificationSettings.usePolicy is true, say that org policy matches the rule/static/dynamic labels and that threshold channels are ignored. Otherwise, a v2 threshold_rule or promql_rule routes only through each threshold tier's channels. If a tier has no channels, call it unrouted or misconfigured; never substitute top-level preferredChannels as a per-tier fallback. A v1 anomaly_rule has no thresholds or notification settings, so its direct routing comes from preferredChannels. Treat that field as routing only when the fetched rule schema defines it, not as a cross-schema fallback. Resolve names from the fully paginated signoz_list_notification_channels result if needed. Also explain notificationSettings.groupBy (bundling) and renotify (interval + states). Skip this section only when routing is already unambiguous in the TL;DR.

4. Notable concerns: flag only what's non-default and worth the user's attention. Don't list every absent field; focus on the high-impact ones:

• alertOnAbsent missing when the signal is critical: silent data loss (crashed service, broken instrumentation) won't trigger the alert. Always call this out for production-tier rules.
• alertOnAbsent: true but nodata not in renotify.alertStates: the absent-data fire pages once and then goes silent (easy to miss).
• Template variable bugs: {{$topic}} won't interpolate; the correct form is {{$labels.topic}}. Dots in label keys become underscores (service.name → {{$labels.service_name}}).
• Multiple severity tiers but labels.severity missing on the rule: breaks label-based routing policies. Common gap.
• All tiers route to the same channel: defeats the point of graduated thresholds.
• High-cardinality groupBy (e.g. pod.name × partition) → notification-storm risk during cluster-wide events.
• Annotation/description text contradicts matchType (e.g. description says "for over 5 minutes" but matchType=at_least_once fires on first breach within the window).
• Alert name doesn't match the filter target (e.g. name says "checkout" but filter targets payments); call this out.

If none of these apply, omit the section rather than pad it.

If the user asked only "what does this alert do", stop here. The audit (Step 5) is for "is it configured correctly" / "audit this" / "anything I should change" requests.

Step 5: Assess the configuration (only if asked)

The user may ask "is this alert reasonable" alongside the explanation. Only assess when asked or when the request implies it (audit, review, "is this configured correctly"). Keep assessment grounded in what's actually in the config:

• Threshold calibration: appropriate for the signal? Consider service criticality and traffic.
• matchType fit: at_least_once is sensitive (catches transients); all_the_times is conservative; on_average smooths noise.
• Window vs frequency: short window + at_least_once can be noisy. Long window can delay detection.
• Multi-severity: alerts with both warning and critical thresholds enable graduated response. Single-severity alerts miss this.
• Notification routing: critical → high-urgency channels (PagerDuty); warning → low-urgency (Slack).
• Missing runbook / description: if annotations are empty or default, suggest adding context.
• Absent-data monitoring: for critical signals, recommend alertOnAbsent: true if it isn't set.
• GroupBy cardinality: high-cardinality groupBy fields can produce many independent alert series; flag potential notification storms.
• Filter completeness: for IN / NOT IN filters with explicit value lists, flag values that look out of place or missing values that seem expected.
• Fire frequency vs threshold: if Step 3 shows the alert fires many times a day (>10/day in the 7d window), the threshold is likely too tight; if it never fires and the user is asking because they expected it to, the threshold may be too loose or the query may be wrong.

Step 6: Offer next steps

Surface up to 3 follow-up intents based on what the explanation revealed: things like investigating a recent fire, running the underlying query to see current values, adjusting a threshold, or creating a related alert for a coverage gap. Use your judgment; do not pad to 3.

Skip follow-ups entirely when the user is purely inspecting ("what does this alert do?") and signals no further intent. Offering no follow-ups is better than offering wrong ones.

Guardrails

• Fetch before explaining. Always call signoz_get_alert. Do not base explanations on the rule name or list response alone.
• Always pull fire history. The one-line frequency summary grounds the explanation, including for disabled alerts: disabled rules can still have earlier fires in the lookback.
• Decode, don't dump. Translate op, matchType, filter expressions, and query JSON into operational language. Show raw JSON only if the user asks.
• Decode every sub-query. For formula alerts, explain each builder query and the formula. Don't gloss over a formula as "error rate"; show the user what A, B, and F1 each compute.
• Anchor to the actual config. Don't speculate based on the alert name. If the name says "checkout" but the filter targets payments, call that out.
• No live queries by default. Do not run the alert's query unless the user asks. Explain is about understanding the rule, not inspecting current data.
• Paginate alert listing. Before concluding an alert does not exist, walk every page of signoz_list_alert_rules.
• SigNoz evaluation model. SigNoz uses evalWindow + frequency
  • matchType, not Prometheus-style for durations. Don't describe the evaluation model in Prometheus terms.
• Stay in scope. Investigation of a specific fire window belongs to signoz-investigating-alerts. Modifications belong to signoz_update_alert.

Examples

User: "Explain my checkout error rate alert"

Agent:

1. signoz_list_alert_rules (paginated) → finds "High Error Rate - Checkout" id 42.

2. signoz_get_alert id=42 → traces formula (A errored spans / B total spans × 100), single critical threshold at 5%, op=1, matchType=1, channel pagerduty-oncall.

3. signoz_get_alert_history id=42 timeRange=7d state=firing order=desc → fired 3 times, last fire 2h ago.

4. Replies:

   TL;DR: Fires when checkout error rate (errored spans / total spans) exceeds 5% at any point in the last 5 min, pages pagerduty-oncall. Fired 3 times in the last 7d (last 2h ago).

   What it watches: traces from service.name = 'checkout'. Query A counts spans with has_error = true, query B counts all spans, F1 = A × 100 / B is the error percentage; the alert triggers on F1.

   When it fires: op=above, matchType=at_least_once, target 5%. Checks every 1 min over the last 5 min; a single elevated minute fires it.

   Notable: no recoveryTarget (could flap near 5%); no alertOnAbsent (a checkout outage that drops traffic to zero won't trigger this rule).

5. Offers: "Want me to investigate the fire from 2h ago?"

---

User: "Explain alert rule 17 - is it well configured?"

Agent:

1. signoz_get_alert id=17 → metrics, system.cpu.utilization, two thresholds (warning 80%, critical 90%), matchType=3 on_average, filter deployment.environment.name = 'production', groupBy host.name.

2. signoz_get_alert_history id=17 → has not fired in last 7d.

3. The user asked "is it well configured?"; the TL;DR leads with the verdict, not a generic description. Then explanation + full audit:

   TL;DR: Mostly well-configured (dual-threshold + on_average is the right call for CPU), but two gaps to fix: (1) no alertOnAbsent (a crashed agent silently stops reporting and this rule won't catch it); (2) annotations are default (a runbook URL would help on-call). Has not fired in the last 7d (could mean production is healthy or thresholds too loose).

   What it watches: system.cpu.utilization on deployment.environment.name = 'production', grouped by host.name (fires per host).

   When it fires: op=above, matchType=on_average, two tiers (warning 80%, critical 90%) over a 5-min window. Short spikes don't fire; smoothing is correct for CPU.

   Notable concerns: same as TL;DR fixes above; nothing else non-default.

4. Offers next steps.

---

User: "Help me understand this anomaly detection alert" (alert id 88)

Agent:

1. signoz_get_alert id=88 → ruleType: anomaly_rule, algorithm=standard (z-score based), seasonality=daily, target 3, metric http.server.request.duration, scope service.name = 'api-gateway'.

2. History: fired 1 time in last 7d.

3. Replies:

   TL;DR: Fires when api-gateway request latency deviates by more than 3 standard deviations (not raw latency, not a fixed value) from its learned daily pattern. Fired once in the last 7d.

   What it watches: http.server.request.duration for service.name = 'api-gateway', evaluated as a Z-score anomaly with daily seasonality: the model learns the typical pattern for each hour of day, so peak-hour latency won't false-trigger if it matches the historical norm for that hour.

   When it fires: when |Z-score| > 3, i.e. the value is more than 3 standard deviations away from the expected pattern. Lower target → more sensitive (more noise); higher → only extreme deviations. The threshold is not in seconds or milliseconds.

4. Offers to investigate the recent fire.