CatchAll (by NewsCatcher)

update_monitor

Update a monitor's webhook assignments and per-run limit.

Note: schedule and reference_job_id cannot be modified through this endpoint. Webhooks are centralized — pass webhook IDs (from create_webhook/list_webhooks).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Optional updated maximum records per run (minimum 10).
`api_key`	No	CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var.
`monitor_id`	Yes	The monitor ID to update
`webhook_ids`	No	Optional list of webhook IDs to assign to this monitor. Pass an empty list `[]` to clear all webhook assignments.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that schedule and reference_job_id cannot be modified, and implies that webhook assignments are replaced (from schema: empty list clears). However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, error behaviors, or whether the limit update is additive. With no annotations, more detail is expected.

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 concise sentences plus a note: the first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the note adds critical constraints (non-modifiable fields) and guidance (webhook ID source). No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (so returns not needed), the description covers core functionality and constraints. However, it omits details like whether the limit update replaces or merges, and what happens to existing webhook assignments when a new list is provided. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by clarifying that webhook IDs come from create_webhook/list_webhooks, which aids parameter selection. For other parameters like limit and api_key, the description adds no extra meaning. Overall, it provides more than the schema alone for webhook_ids.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states it updates 'webhook assignments and per-run limit', naming the specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_monitor (creates) and delete_monitor (deletes) by focusing on modification. The note about non-modifiable fields further clarifies scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly states what can be updated (webhook assignments and limit) and what cannot (schedule, reference_job_id). It provides guidance on sourcing webhook IDs from create_webhook/list_webhooks. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like enable_monitor/disable_monitor, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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

All CatchAll (by NewsCatcher) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool is scoped to a specific resource type and action, with clear distinctions between similarly named operations (e.g., pull_results vs pull_job_csv, initialize_query vs validate_query). No two tools appear to perform the same function.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools consistently use snake_case verb_noun patterns (create_X, get_X, list_X, update_X, delete_X), with domain-specific verbs like submit, pull, initialize, and validate adding semantic clarity. Minor deviations such as pull_* vs get_* and compound names like create_dataset_from_csv are still predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 60 tools, the server is heavily overstuffed for a single MCP surface. While the broad domain (datasets, entities, jobs, monitors, projects, webhooks) justifies many operations, the sheer volume exceeds typical recommended limits and includes near-duplicates (pull_results vs pull_job_csv, get_dataset vs get_dataset_status), making agent tool selection unwieldy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides robust CRUD and lifecycle coverage for all major resources, including special operations like csv import, webhook mapping, and monitor enable/disable. Minor gaps such as the absence of a get_monitor (single monitor details) and no cancel_job can be worked around via list_monitors and waiting for job completion.

Resources

Need Help?