Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Visual Sentinel

by com.visualsentinel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create an alert rule

vs_alert_rules_create

Create an alert rule that fires when a monitor is slower than a response time or below an uptime percent.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "conditions": "<conditions>"
    },
    "name": "vs_alert_rules_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
enabledNo
severityNoINFO, WARNING or CRITICAL.WARNING
timezoneNoIANA time zone for the schedule, for example Europe/Berlin (default UTC).UTC
monitorIdNoMonitor id the rule watches; null watches every monitor.
conditionsYesOne condition or a list that must all be true: { type: "response_time", threshold: milliseconds, operator: "gt" } or { type: "uptime", threshold: percent, operator: "lt" }. Down alerts, repeated failures and SSL expiry are sent by the built-in alerts and are not rule conditions.
descriptionNo
scheduleEndNoOptional 24h end time (HH:MM).
scheduleStartNoOptional 24h start time (HH:MM) of the hours the rule may fire, with scheduleEnd and timezone.
cooldownMinutesNoMinutes before the rule can fire again.
notificationChannelIdsNoAlert channel ids the rule sends to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing on top: no mention that duplicate rules can be created (non-idempotent), no side effects from notifications firing, no note that built-in alerts already handle down/SSL cases (that caveat lives only in the schema).

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the action and the trigger semantics with zero padding. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

An 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema needs more than a single sentence: the agent gets no idea what is returned (a rule id?), what defaults apply (enabled=true, severity=WARNING, cooldown 5 min with no channels), or that a rule without notificationChannelIds may never notify anyone. The rich schema helps, but the description leaves real gaps for a create operation.

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 description coverage is 73% and the schema already documents conditions, monitorId, cooldownMinutes, timezone and notificationChannelIds in detail. The description only restates the two condition types that the schema spells out, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond structured data — notably silent on the interaction between scheduleStart/scheduleEnd/timezone and on how notificationChannelIds affects delivery.

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 ('Create an alert rule') and adds the two trigger families (response time, uptime percent), which lets an agent distinguish it from vs_alert_rules_update/list/get. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No statement of when to create a rule versus updating an existing one, no prerequisites (monitor must exist, channels should be created first via vs_channels_create), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the whole routing decision from the tool name.

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

All Visual Sentinel 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