monitors-update_action
Update a monitor action
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actionId | Yes | ||
| monitorId | Yes | ||
| __requestBody | Yes | Request body |
Saber
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already state. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, what side effects occur, or any requirement for the action to already exist. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing extra.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but it is under-specification rather than concise. It is a single sentence that merely restates the tool's name without added value, so it is not appropriately sized for a tool with a complex nested request body.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters, a nested request body, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It provides no information about return values, update semantics, or required fields, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description makes no reference to the parameters (monitorId, actionId, __requestBody). Schema description coverage is only 33%, leaving the nested webhook configuration largely unexplained. The description does not compensate, offering zero semantic help for understanding the request body.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a monitor action' states a clear verb and resource, but it does not specify what an 'action' is or what 'update' entails. It is very close to a paraphrased tool name and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like monitors-pause_action or monitors-resume_action, which also modify action state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monitors-create_action, monitors-pause_action, or monitors-delete_action. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
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.
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as signals-firmographics vs companies-enrich_firmographics, findEmail vs contacts-enrich_work_email, and monitors vs signal_subscriptions vs market_signals. While descriptions add some context, an agent could easily select the wrong tool due to the high similarity in function.
Naming Consistency2/5
Most tools use a resource_subresource-action pattern, but there are inconsistent separators: underscores within some names, hyphens in others (e.g., scoring-assignment-bulk-create), and several camelCase exceptions (findEmail, findEmailBatchGet, getContactResearchByExternalID). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel unpredictable.
Tool Count1/5
With 119 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Even for a comprehensive B2B data platform, the sheer number creates cognitive overload and increases the risk of incorrect tool selection.
Completeness4/5
The server covers an extensive range of operations: enrichment, lists, contacts, signals, subscriptions, monitors, and scoring. Nearly every resource has create, read, update, and delete or lifecycle equivalents, leaving very few practical gaps for the intended use case.