Visual Sentinel

Change an incident

vs_incidents_update

DestructiveIdempotent

Change an incident: status, severity, title, description, root cause or resolution, acknowledge it (stops its repeat reminders), or turn off auto-resolve so it stays open after the site recovers. A status change is announced to its alert channels and status page subscribers unless notify is false. 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_incidents_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Incident id.
`title`	No	Short title (up to 200 characters).
`notify`	No	false records the change without telling the incident's alert channels and status page subscribers (default true).
`status`	No	INVESTIGATING, IDENTIFIED, MONITORING, RESOLVED or POSTMORTEM.
`actionId`	No	Optional UUID you make once per action, so a retried call is not applied or announced twice.
`severity`	No	CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW or INFO.
`rootCause`	No	What caused it (up to 2000 characters).
`resolution`	No	How it was fixed (up to 2000 characters).
`resolvedAt`	No	ISO 8601 time it was resolved.
`autoResolve`	No	false keeps the incident open after the monitor recovers, until someone resolves it.
`description`	No	Up to 2000 characters.
`acknowledged`	No	true acknowledges now as the connected account; false clears it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real side-effect context: a status change is broadcast to alert channels and status page subscribers unless notify is false, and acknowledging stops repeat reminders. It does not address reversibility or permission requirements, keeping 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?

Three densely packed sentences that front-load the resource and its editable surface, then the notification side effect, then the partial-update rule. Slightly long first sentence but no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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 covers the editable surface, the externally visible broadcast effect, and how to call it (only changed fields). Idempotency via actionId is left to the schema, and permissions/failure modes are unmentioned, but an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the notify and autoResolve semantics. The description's field list and the notify caveat largely mirror that, adding only slight framing value, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change an incident') and enumerates exactly which attributes can be modified, including the acknowledge and auto-resolve switches. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as vs_incidents_mark_resolved, vs_incidents_post_update, or vs_incidents_stop_alerting, leaving overlap for the agent to guess.

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?

'Send only the fields to change' is a genuine usage rule (partial update semantics), and the enumerated field list implies when this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit routing guidance against alternatives like mark_resolved or stop_alerting, so the agent must infer which mutation tool to pick.

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.