update_testEnable or disable a test definition globally, or update its schedule/timeout. Requires admin scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Test plugin slug (e.g. "http-protocol-check") | |
| enabled | No | Enable or disable the test globally | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in milliseconds | |
| defaultSchedule | No | Cron schedule (e.g. "0 */6 * * *") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the admin scope requirement, a useful permission hint, but it fails to describe side effects like whether disabling a test affects currently running runs, idempotency, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, enumerates the update axes, and ends with the permission requirement. Nothing is redundant or wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for initial selection but leaves gaps about update semantics: whether partial updates are allowed, whether changes take effect immediately, and what the tool returns on success. It provides essential purpose and permission context but not operational completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic grouping by mapping the action 'enable/disable' to the 'enabled' parameter and 'schedule/timeout' to 'defaultSchedule' and 'timeout', helping the agent understand how parameters relate to intended operations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a test definition and enumerates specific capabilities: enabling/disabling globally and updating schedule/timeout. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_target or trigger_test, and makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you need to modify a test's enabled state, schedule, or timeout) but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as enable_all_tests for bulk operations. Usage context is clear but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource (targets, runs, findings, incidents, etc.) and action. A few close pairs like active_runs/list_runs and mute_finding/create_muting_rule could confuse, but descriptions clarify the distinctions.
The majority of tools follow verb_noun naming (create_target, get_target, delete_journey). A few outliers use noun phrases (active_runs, daily_trends, system_health, team_stats) which slightly breaks the pattern, but overall the convention is predictable.
74 tools is extreme for any MCP server. Even for a comprehensive monitoring platform, this overwhelms agents with too many granular operations (e.g., enable_all_tests vs disable_all_tests vs update_test, or import_targets duplicating create_target). A more consolidated set would be appropriate.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for the monitoring domain: full CRUD for targets, journeys, rules, reports, secrets, and fragments; plus run triggering, incident management, findings handling, SEO tracking, guest scans, and admin tools. Only maintenance windows lack an update operation, which is minor.