Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OneUptime

by com.oneuptime
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update Security Detection

update_security_detection
DestructiveIdempotent

Update one Security Detection by ID: only the fields sent change. Fields: oneuptime_describe_resource.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_security_detection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"ID (UUID) of the Security Detection to update."New value: +"ID."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"The unique identifier (UUID) of the Security Detection to update. Required. Use list_security_detections to find IDs."New value: +"ID (UUID) of the Security Detection to update."
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's partial-update note is consistent but adds little. It never explains what the destructive hint means in practice — which fields are overwritten, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed — and its only extra content (the "fields" list) points at another tool rather than describing behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The definition is short and the core operation is front-loaded in the first clause. The second sentence, however, is an artifact that does not earn its place and actively obscures what can be updated, so brevity here is under-specification rather than economy.

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?

This is a destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema and only one documented parameter; the description should explain what is modified, what harm the destructive hint warns of, and what is returned. None of that is present, and the "oneuptime_describe_resource" reference adds confusion rather than completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is nominally 100%, but the single property's description is just "ID.", and the description does not supply an ID format or example to compensate. Worse, it advertises a "Fields:" value that does not exist in a schema with additionalProperties=false, which could lead an agent to attempt parameters the tool will reject.

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?

It states the verb and resource ("Update one Security Detection by ID") and adds partial-update semantics, so the operation type is clear. However, the trailing "Fields: oneuptime_describe_resource" is not a field at all but the name of a sibling tool, so the sentence that should specify the updateable surface is incoherent.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no distinction from siblings such as get_security_detection or create_security_detection, and no prerequisites. "Only the fields sent change" implies PATCH semantics but does not say which fields are updatable or when a caller should prefer this over a full replacement.

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

All OneUptime toolsInspect
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