Skip to main content
Glama

Update monitor

update_monitor
Destructive

Update an existing monitor: rename, change frequency, pause/resume, or change its alert conditions, extraction, pre-check actions, skills and their alert rules. Omitted fields stay unchanged; pass null to clear notifyWhen, notifyConditions, jsonPath, outputExtractorPattern, notifyWebhookUrl, actions or skills.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "update_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew monitor name
uuidYesMonitor uuid (from list_monitors)
activeNotrue resumes checks, false pauses them
labelsNoLabel names for the monitor (up to 10). New names create the label in the account; existing labels with the same name are reused. Replaces the monitor's labels: include the ones it already has (get_monitor lists them) to keep them. [] or null removes them all.
actionsNoOrdered list of interactions to perform before each check, e.g. [{"type":"CLICK","selector":"#accept-cookies"},{"type":"WAIT","value":1500},{"type":"CLICK","selector":".load-more"}]. Use this when the content to watch is behind a cookie banner, a tab, a "show more" control, or a dropdown. Max 20 steps. Script and JS/CSS injection steps are dashboard-only and rejected here. Replaces the whole list; read the monitor first to keep existing steps. Pass null to remove them all.
jsonPathNoFor JSON API endpoints: JSONPath to the value to monitor, e.g. $.data.items[0].price. Starts with '$'. Pass null to clear.
keywordsNoTEXT monitors only: comma-separated keywords to watch for, e.g. "sold out, unavailable" Pass null to clear.
frequencyNoMinutes between checks, as a string: '5', '15', '30', '60' (hourly), '180', '360', '720', '1440' (daily), '10080' (weekly), '302400' (monthly). Omit for the plan default. A frequency faster than the plan allows is raised to the plan minimum.
notifyWhenNoNatural-language alert condition evaluated by AI on every check, e.g. 'notify me when the price drops below $500' or 'alert when the Pro plan changes'. Mutually exclusive with notifyConditions. Pass null to clear.
keywordsActionNoTEXT monitors only: alert when keywords are ADDED to the page (default) or REMOVED from it
outputExtractorNoHow to extract the monitored value from the page text: NUMBER pulls the first number (good for prices), REGEX applies outputExtractorPattern, NONE keeps the full text.
notifyConditionsNoDeterministic alert conditions on the extracted output (no AI credits). All conditions must pass. Requires the output to change. Mutually exclusive with notifyWhen. Not available for HTML monitors. Pass null to clear.
outputExtractorPatternNoRegular expression for outputExtractor: REGEX — bare pattern or /pattern/flags; the first capture group (or full match) becomes the monitored output, e.g. 'In stock: (\d+)' Pass null to clear.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so part of the safety bar is met structurally. The description does add real behavioral context beyond them: omitted fields are preserved, null clears a named set of fields, and list fields like actions/labels are replaced wholesale rather than merged. It omits any warning about irreversible loss when a list is replaced without reading first, or validation/error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines scope, the second defines mutation semantics. The null field list is long but each item is necessary because clearing behavior differs per field, and the critical rule is front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 13 parameters, no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the main calling contract. It is silent on prerequisites (does the monitor need to exist/be active), what is returned, and whether partially invalid input rejects the whole update. For a destructive, open-world mutation tool that is a real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description still earns credit by adding patch semantics that the schema does not state: omitted fields are unchanged and null specifically clears notifyWhen, notifyConditions, jsonPath, outputExtractorPattern, notifyWebhookUrl, actions and skills. It does not cover semantics for all 13 parameters (e.g. labels replacement) but the key destructive null/skip distinction is spelled out.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

State a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing monitor") and enumerates the mutable areas: rename, frequency, pause/resume, alert conditions, extraction, pre-check actions, skills and alert rules. That is far beyond a tautology. It loses a point because "pause/resume" overlaps with the pause_monitor and resume_monitor siblings, and the description never disambiguates which to prefer.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a strong patch-semantics rule (omitted fields stay unchanged, null clears) which guides how to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as pause_monitor/resume_monitor for the pause/resume case, or create_monitor. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources