Skip to main content
Glama

Change a status page group

vs_status_page_groups_update
DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a status page group or change its tag rule.

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>",
      "groupId": "<groupId>"
    },
    "name": "vs_status_page_groups_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesStatus page id.
nameNoGroup name (up to 80 characters).
groupIdYesGroup id.
tagRuleNoMonitor tag that fills the group; null removes it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds operation scope but does not explain what makes the update destructive, such as how changing or removing a tag rule affects group membership, nor does it add auth or rate-limit context.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the two updateable aspects immediately and is appropriately sized for a simple update tool.

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?

Given the simple update scope, complete input schema, and rich annotations carrying safety behavior, the description is largely complete. It could be stronger by noting that at least one optional field should be supplied or by clarifying the destructive effect of tag-rule changes.

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 the schema already documents the four parameters, including the required ids and the tagRule null behavior. The description only hints at name and tagRule and adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: renaming a status page group or changing its tag rule. It is clear what the tool changes, but it does not explicitly distinguish this update operation from sibling create, delete, or reorder tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when an agent should update a group versus create, delete, reorder, or use a different status-page group tool.

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.