Sergio by Serviche

Edit a Scanner

edit_scanner

Idempotent

Changes a Scanner, as its editor on the Scanners page does: any of name, question, inputs, look-again timing, who gets the task, due rule, destination, contact types, enabled. scanner_id comes from read('scanners'). Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying. An owner-level change: Sergio tells the owner after it is made.

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": {
      "scanner_id": "<scanner_id>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "edit_scanner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`draft`	No
`inputs`	No
`reason`	No	Why you are doing this, in one sentence. The owner sees it in the notice Sergio sends after the change.
`rollup`	No
`enabled`	No
`due_rule`	No
`question`	No
`due_hours`	No
`scanner_id`	Yes
`destination`	No
`refinements`	No
`assignee_kind`	No
`contact_types`	No
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Your id for this operation (8-128 of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -). Reuse it on every retry of the same operation; use a new one for a new operation.
`look_again_kind`	No
`assignee_member_id`	No
`look_again_minutes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real value beyond that: an owner-level change with a post-hoc notice to the owner, and the reason field feeding that notice. It does not state partial-update semantics — whether omitted fields are preserved or reset — which matters for an 18-parameter edit.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the field list, then the prerequisite and idempotency rules — a sensible information order with no filler. The parenthetical 'as its editor on the Scanners page does' is slightly indirect but earns its place by defining scope compactly.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the notice side-effect and the idempotency contract, which is more than most. However, with 18 parameters and only 11% schema coverage, the unexplained draft, rollup and refinements fields leave an agent guessing at a substantial part of the surface.

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?

With only 11% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden. It names the bulk of the editable fields (name, question, inputs, look-again timing, assignee, due rule, destination, contact types, enabled), but leaves draft, rollup, refinements and reason unexplained, and gives no guidance on how due_rule pairs with due_hours or look_again_kind with look_again_minutes.

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 gives a specific verb ('Changes') and resource ('a Scanner'), then enumerates the mutable fields, which distinguishes it cleanly from create_scanner, delete_scanner and set_scanner_on. It also states the field-level equivalent ('as its editor on the Scanners page does'), so an agent knows the scope without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is concrete: 'scanner_id comes from read(\'scanners\')' supplies the prerequisite lookup, and the idempotency_key retry rule tells the agent how to recover from failure. The gap is that it never addresses when to use this versus set_scanner_on, even though the schema exposes an 'enabled' flag that overlaps with that sibling.

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

All Sergio by Serviche 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?