Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Visual Sentinel

by com.visualsentinel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change a monitor's alert settings

vs_monitors_update_alerting
DestructiveIdempotent

Change where a monitor sends alerts and when: alert channels, failed checks before a down alert, delay, slow limit, slow checks before a slow alert, and repeat alerts. Only the fields sent 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_monitors_update_alerting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMonitor id.
alertDelayNoSeconds to wait before sending a down alert.
alertThresholdNoFailed checks in a row before a down alert (1 or more).
maxResponseTimeNoSlow limit in milliseconds (100 to 30000). A check slower than this counts as slow.
slowAlertThresholdNoSlow checks in a row before a slow-response alert (1 to 10).
notificationChannelIdsNoAlert channel ids this monitor sends to (replaces the current list).
notificationRepeatIntervalNoMinutes until a reminder while still down; after that, one reminder a day (0 sends none, up to 1440).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / notificationRepeatInterval / description
      Previous value: -"Minutes between repeat alerts while still down (0 sends no repeats, up to 1440)."New value: +"Minutes until a reminder while still down; after that, one reminder a day (0 sends none, up to 1440)."
  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, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with 'Only the fields sent change', disclosing partial-update semantics that the annotations do not convey. It does not warn that notificationChannelIds replaces the existing channel list — the destructive behavior flagged by annotations is only discoverable by reading the schema.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first establishes scope and field coverage, the second establishes patch semantics. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the key constraint is placed at the end where it reads as a rule rather than preamble.

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 7-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose and update semantics but omits the destructive replacement of the channel list and the relationship to vs_monitors_channels_set, the one sibling that plausibly does the same job. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is required.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with types, ranges and semantics; baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter set in prose but adds no format, default or interaction detail beyond the schema (e.g. no guidance that channel ids must first be obtained from vs_channels_list).

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 states a specific verb (change) and resource (a monitor's alerting configuration) and enumerates the affected settings — channels, thresholds, delay, slow limit, repeat interval. The enumeration implicitly separates it from sibling update tools such as vs_monitors_update_basics or vs_monitors_update_check_method, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for alert-related fields and not for name/tags/check settings. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. monitor must exist), and no mention of the overlapping siblings vs_monitors_channels_set or vs_alert_rules_update, which is a real ambiguity given notificationChannelIds is a parameter here.

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