Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Visual Sentinel

by com.visualsentinel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change alert settings on many monitors

vs_monitors_bulk_update
DestructiveIdempotent

Change alert settings on many monitors at once: alert timing in updates, and alert channels with channelAction (replace, add or remove) plus notificationChannelIds. Send updates, a channel action, or both.

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": {
      "monitorIds": "<monitorIds>"
    },
    "name": "vs_monitors_bulk_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
updatesNoAny of: alertThreshold (1 to 10 failed checks in a row), slowAlertThreshold (1 to 10), alertDelay (seconds, 0 to 900), notificationRepeatInterval (minutes until a reminder, then one a day; 0 to 1440), visualCheckInterval (seconds, 900 to 86400).
monitorIdsYesIds of the monitors to change.
channelActionNoreplace sets exactly these channels (an empty list removes all), add and remove change the current list.
notificationChannelIdsNoAlert channel ids for channelAction.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / updates / description
      Previous value: -"Any of: alertThreshold (1 to 10 failed checks in a row), slowAlertThreshold (1 to 10), alertDelay (seconds, 0 to 900), notificationRepeatInterval (minutes, 0 to 1440), visualCheckInterval (seconds, 900 to 86400)."New value: +"Any of: alertThreshold (1 to 10 failed checks in a row), slowAlertThreshold (1 to 10), alertDelay (seconds, 0 to 900), notificationRepeatInterval (minutes until a reminder, then one a day; 0 to 1440), visualCheckInterval (seconds, 900 to 86400)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The potentially destructive 'replace with empty list removes all channels' nuance appears here but is also already spelled out in the channelAction schema description, so the description adds little beyond structured data; atomicity and partial-failure behavior across a 2000-monitor batch are unaddressed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear colon-delimited breakdown of the two parameter groups. No filler, no redundancy that isn't serving the enumeration of what can be sent.

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?

With no output schema and a destructive bulk mutation, the agent is left without return-shape information or behavior on partial failures / invalid monitor ids. Parameters are fully documented elsewhere, so the gap is narrow but real for a batch write.

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% and the nested `updates` object documents every field with ranges, so the schema carries the load. The description restates what is visible ('alert timing in updates', 'channelAction (replace, add or remove) plus notificationChannelIds') without adding format or interaction detail beyond it.

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), resource (alert settings) and scope (many monitors at once), and names the two field groups involved. It does not name the single-monitor siblings (vs_monitors_update_alerting, vs_monitors_channels_set), so differentiation is implied by 'many ... at once' rather than explicit.

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 updates, a channel action, or both' gives explicit guidance on which parameter groups to combine, but says nothing about when to reach for this tool rather than vs_monitors_update_alerting or vs_monitors_channels_set, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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