Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Visual Sentinel

by com.visualsentinel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change an alert rule

vs_alert_rules_update
DestructiveIdempotent

Change an alert rule's conditions, severity, channels, schedule, or turn it on or off. Send only the fields to change.

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": "vs_alert_rules_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAlert rule id.
nameNo
enabledNo
severityNoINFO, WARNING or CRITICAL.
timezoneNoIANA time zone for the schedule, for example Europe/Berlin (default UTC).
monitorIdNoMonitor id the rule watches; null watches every monitor.
conditionsNoOne 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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the patch-semantics detail (omitted fields are left alone) and that the rule can be toggled on/off, but it does not explain why a change is flagged destructive, what happens to in-flight alerts, or whether omitted vs null differ.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the what-changes summary front-loaded and the calling instruction second. Nothing here is wasted.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves a real ambiguity: whether a field is cleared by setting null (schema permits null for monitorId/scheduleEnd/scheduleStart) or only by sending an empty value. It also says nothing about failure modes or what the response contains.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema itself documents the interesting parameters (conditions shape, timezone IANA format, monitorId null meaning, schedule window). The description only regroups them at a high level and never mentions name, description or cooldownMinutes, so it adds little per-parameter meaning beyond the schema — baseline 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 ('change') plus the resource and enumerates the mutable facets (conditions, severity, channels, schedule, enabled), so the agent knows exactly what the tool edits. It distinguishes itself implicitly from vs_alert_rules_create/delete/get/list by being field-level mutation, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Send only the fields to change' gives clear, actionable context that this is a partial update, which the agent needs in order to call it correctly. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., use create for a new rule, delete to remove), so it stops short of a 5.

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