Skip to main content
Glama

Set a monitor's alert channels

vs_monitors_channels_set
DestructiveIdempotent

Choose exactly which alert channels a monitor sends to. The list replaces the current one; an empty list sends this monitor's alerts nowhere.

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>",
      "channelIds": "<channelIds>"
    },
    "name": "vs_monitors_channels_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMonitor id.
channelIdsYesAlert channel ids.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but only the description says what is destroyed: the existing list is fully replaced, and an empty array silences all alerting for the monitor. That is exactly the destructive-mechanics detail annotations cannot convey, and it also aligns with idempotentHint=true.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed immediately by the one behavior an agent must not miss. No repetition of the title or schema fields.

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?

With fully described parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining need is replacement and empty-list behavior, both supplied. Minor gap: no mention of what happens with invalid channel ids or whether channels must belong to the workspace.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline; the description earns above that by clarifying that channelIds is a complete replacement set rather than an addition, which the schema's 'Alert channel ids.' text does not convey. It adds nothing further about id or id format, keeping it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('choose exactly which alert channels a monitor sends to'), and the word 'exactly' plus the replacement clause makes it unmistakable how this differs from the read-side sibling vs_monitors_channels_get. An agent can pick this tool without inspecting the schema.

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?

The replacement semantics imply this is the write counterpart to vs_monitors_channels_get, but the description never names an alternative or states when not to use it (e.g. use vs_monitors_channels_get to inspect first). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.