editalmd

Edit an alert

update_alert

Destructive

Edits the interest, or pauses or turns on again an alert of the owner. The filters replace the whole filter.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Alert identifier.
`uf`	No	State (UF) abbreviation; empty means all.
`nome`	No	Alert name, up to 100 characters.
`ativo`	No	`false` pauses without deleting; `true` turns it on again.
`canal`	No	New channel: `pull`, `webhook` or `email`. Email requires a session and uses explicit recipients or the account email.
`termos`	No	Object terms; a space requires all words, \| accepts alternatives.
`destino`	No	New https URL on port 443 (webhook). Ignored for pull and email.
`filtros`	No	Extra filter: modalities, municipalities, exclusions, values, open proposals and CNAEs. PATCH replaces the whole filter; {} clears it.
`destinatarios`	No	Email recipients: `para`, `cc` and `bcc` arrays. Up to 10 distinct addresses in total. An empty `para` list uses the account email. PATCH replaces all three lists. BCC is hidden from other recipients.
`organizacao_id`	No	Organization from `GET /api/me/empresas`. Membership and MFA are checked. Null removes the label. This does not share alert ownership.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / canal / description

Previous value: -"New channel: `pull`, `webhook` or `email` (the verified e-mail of the account; requires a session)."New value: +"New channel: `pull`, `webhook` or `email`. Email requires a session and uses explicit recipients or the account email."

addedInput schema / properties / destinatarios

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Email recipients: `para`, `cc` and `bcc` arrays. Up to 10 distinct addresses in total. An empty `para` list uses the account email. PATCH replaces all three lists. BCC is hidden from other recipients.",
+  "properties": {
+    "bcc": {
+      "items": {
+        "format": "email",
+        "maxLength": 254,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 10,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "cc": {
+      "items": {
+        "format": "email",
+        "maxLength": 254,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 10,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "para": {
+      "items": {
+        "format": "email",
+        "maxLength": 254,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 10,
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / nome

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alert name, up to 100 characters.",
+  "maxLength": 100,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / organizacao_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Organization from `GET /api/me/empresas`. Membership and MFA are checked. Null removes the label. This does not share alert ownership.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

AddedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description's only added behavioral note (filters replace the whole filter) simply duplicates the schema's filtros description, and it says nothing about the partial-update nature, required permissions, or ownership constraints the schema touches on.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the replace-semantics warning is stated up front. It is efficient but arguably too sparse for a 10-parameter tool with two nested objects.

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?

For a 10-parameter partial-update tool with nested objects, no output schema and destructive semantics, the description is minimal, but the fully covered schema plus the destructive/idempotent annotations carry most of the burden. It is adequate but leaves the update-vs-create decision and destructive consequences to inference.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all ten parameters including nested filtros and destinatarios. The description adds no syntax, format, or default beyond the replace-whole-filter rule that is already in the schema, so it earns nothing extra.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edits ... an alert of the owner') and clarifies the scope ('interest, or pauses or turns on again'). The siblings create_alert, preview_alert and list_alert_matches are never named, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The phrase 'The filters replace the whole filter' hints at the PATCH-style update contract, but there is no statement of when to use update_alert instead of create_alert or preview_alert, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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

All editalmd tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?