Skip to main content
Glama

Fixter

by dev.fixter.mcp

add_alert_channel

Add a Slack channel id to the authenticated customer's notification-channel list. ADMIN only. Idempotent — adding a channel id that is already configured is a no-op unless sources is given, in which case it overwrites the channel's sources. Returns the added channel as JSON; its id is the notification-channel registry UUID — pass this value (not channelId) into Fixter alert-rule routing (the channelIds parameter of save_alert_rule / set_alert_rule_delivery, served by a different service).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourcesNoNotification sources this channel should receive, e.g. ["alerting", "issues"]. Omit to keep the channel's current sources (all sources, including future ones, for a brand-new channel).
channelIdYesSlack channel id to add, e.g. C0123456789.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses authorization (ADMIN only), idempotency, source overwriting, return value as JSON, and UUID semantics. It doesn't mention failure modes or permission-denied behavior, but it meaningfully covers the key behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences, each dense and purposeful: the core action + access restriction, the edge-case behavior, and the return-value usage guidance. No filler or repetition; content is front-loaded with the most important facts.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it states the operation, auth requirement, idempotency, return format, and how the result should be consumed in related services. There are no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying channelId is a Slack channel id, explaining the no-op/overwrite semantics for channels already configured, and warning that the returned UUID is different from channelId and must be used downstream. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('Slack channel id' to 'notification-channel list'). It is immediately distinct from siblings like remove_alert_channel and list_alert_channels, and the description states the exact operation and target.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states ADMIN-only access, idempotency semantics, the overwrite behavior when sources is provided, and cross-tool guidance that the returned UUID (not channelId) must be used in Fixter alert-rule routing. This gives clear when-to-use and how-to-integrate context beyond the schema.

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

All Fixter toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool pairs are near-duplicates, including three deprecated aliases (add_investigation_alert_channel vs add_alert_channel, list_investigation_alert_channels vs list_alert_channels, remove_investigation_alert_channel vs remove_alert_channel) that muddy the surface. Additionally, suppress_signal and create_ignore_rule both suppress alerting via different mechanisms, which could cause misselection despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_api_test, list_issues, set_alert_rule_status). A few bare-noun tools (logs, spans, metrics) and the standalone verb correlate break the pattern slightly, but overall the naming is highly consistent and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 52 tools, this is on the extreme end of the calibration scale. Even accounting for the broad scope of an observability platform, the count is excessive and includes several deprecated redundancies that inflate it further.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides comprehensive CRUD/lifecycle coverage across all major domains: alert rules (create, read, update, delete, status, delivery, preview), API tests (create, read, update, delete, run history, credentials), ignore rules and suppressions, issues with digest config, investigations with claim/read, channels, credentials, and rich query tools (logs, spans, metrics, SQL, traces, correlation). No obvious dead ends or missing core operations.

Resources