Skip to main content
Glama

Change a site's settings

update_site_settings
Idempotent

Change a site's operational settings. Only the fields you pass change. Browser identity, the proxy, the firewall token, GitHub and search-engine connections, and deleting the site stay in the dashboard.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDisplay name
siteIdYesThe site id
aiTriageNoRelvato AI triage of failed runs: label = each failure labelled needs attention / likely noise / repeat; hold = also hold back the instant alert of a confident likely-noise failure (never checkout, sign-in, uptime or security; still in the bell and digest); aside = also set that failure aside (out of the bell, digest and site health; the owner brings it back in the app); off = none (Pro and up; sends run details to Anthropic)
pacingMsNoPause between a run's requests, 0-60000 ms; null = automatic
jobSpacingMsNoPause between this site's runs, 0-900000 ms; null/0 = none
recoverStreakNoClean runs before a flaky monitor alerts again, 2-10; null = 5
pluginRollbackNoWordPress: roll a plugin update back when it breaks a monitor
challengeRetryMsNoWait before retrying a run a firewall challenged, 0-3600000 ms; null = 10 minutes, 0 = never
rumIncludeOwnChecksNoCount Relvato's own visits in real-user Web Vitals

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / aiTriage / description
      Previous value: -"Relvato AI triage of failed runs: label = each failure labelled needs attention / likely noise / repeat; off = none (Pro and up; sends run details to Anthropic)"New value: +"Relvato AI triage of failed runs: label = each failure labelled needs attention / likely noise / repeat; hold = also hold back the instant alert of a confident likely-noise failure (never checkout, sign-in, uptime or security; still in the bell and digest); aside = also set that failure aside (out of the bell, digest and site health; the owner brings it back in the app); off = none (Pro and up; sends run details to Anthropic)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / aiTriage / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "off",
      -  "label"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "off",
      +  "label",
      +  "hold",
      +  "aside"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / aiTriage
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Relvato AI triage of failed runs: label = each failure labelled needs attention / likely noise / repeat; off = none (Pro and up; sends run details to Anthropic)",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "off",
      +    "label"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is partially covered. The description adds two pieces of genuinely new context: partial-update (merge) semantics rather than full replacement, and an explicit negative boundary of settings that cannot be modified here. It still says nothing about permission requirements or side effects on running monitors.

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, zero waste, with the merge behavior front-loaded before the scope exclusions. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description should carry more return-value burden, but for a settings mutation the merge semantics and scope boundary are the decision-relevant facts and both are present. Missing only confirmatory details like whether current values are echoed back.

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% and every parameter carries a detailed description, including the aiTriage enum semantics and numeric ranges, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no field-level syntax or default information beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 ("Change a site's operational settings") and delineates scope by naming what is out of bounds (browser identity, proxy, firewall token, integrations, deletion). It stops short of naming the read counterpart get_site_settings or other settings-update siblings, so the agent must infer 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?

"Only the fields you pass change" effectively communicates patch semantics for when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over update_check_settings or update_alert_settings, and no mention of prerequisites such as required permissions or site ownership.

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.