Visual Sentinel

Change the limit and resolve an incident

vs_incidents_change_limit

DestructiveIdempotent

Save a new limit for the problem behind an incident on its site (how slow is too slow, how long to wait before an outage alert, or how much of the page may change), then mark the incident resolved. Which incidents offer it, and the allowed range, depend on the incident. Needs monitors:write as well. The incident's alert channels and status page subscribers are told it is resolved unless notify is false.

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>",
      "limit": "<limit>"
    },
    "name": "vs_incidents_change_limit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Incident id.
`limit`	Yes	The new limit: seconds for a slow site, minutes to wait before alerting for an outage, percent for a page change. The allowed range depends on the incident.
`notify`	No	false records the change without telling the incident's alert channels and status page subscribers (default true).
`actionId`	No	Optional UUID you make once per action, so a retried call is not applied or announced twice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine side-effect detail: alert channels and status page subscribers are notified unless notify is false. It does not state whether the resolution is reversible or what happens when an incident doesn't support limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then follow-on constraints. The nested parenthetical listing the three limit kinds is slightly dense but each sentence carries distinct information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, no-output-schema mutation, it covers the essential unknowns: permission requirement, conditional availability across incidents, outbound notification behavior, and the idempotency hook (actionId, detailed in schema). An agent has enough to invoke this safely.

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 100%, so id, limit and notify are already fully documented in the schema; the description's parenthetical about seconds/minutes/percent and the incident-dependent range largely restates that. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description names a specific verb sequence (save a new limit, then mark the incident resolved) on a specific resource (the problem behind an incident on its site), and enumerates the three limit flavors. It is clearly distinct from plain resolvers like vs_incidents_mark_resolved, but it never names a sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It supplies real preconditions — monitors:write is required and which incidents offer the operation depends on the incident — but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance (e.g., versus vs_incidents_mark_resolved or vs_monitors_update_performance). Usage is implied by context rather than stated.

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

All Visual Sentinel 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.