All's Well

Update Monitor Tool

update-monitor

Update a monitor. Only the fields you send change; send null to clear an optional field. The type cannot change. notification_contact_ids replaces the monitor's whole set of alert contacts.

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": "update-monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The monitor id to update.
`url`	No	A full URL such as https://shop.example.com. tcp and icmp use only its host.
`name`	No	Human-readable monitor name.
`port`	No	tcp monitors: port 1-65535.
`password`	No	A new basic-auth password. Leave it out to keep the stored one.
`username`	No	HTTP basic-auth user name, or null to remove basic auth (clears the password too).
`is_active`	No	false pauses the monitor; true resumes it.
`http_method`	No	HTTP method.
`request_headers`	No	Replacement request headers, name to value, or null to remove them.
`expected_keyword`	No	keyword monitors: text expected in the response body.
`expected_status_codes`	No	HTTP status codes counted as up.
`check_interval_minutes`	No	Check frequency in minutes, at least the plan minimum. Clears any check_interval_seconds override.
`check_interval_seconds`	No	Exact interval in seconds, at least the plan minimum; overrides the minutes. For a heartbeat, longer than the job period.
`request_timeout_seconds`	No	Request timeout, 1-60 seconds.
`ssl_expiry_warning_days`	No	Warn this many days before the certificate expires, 1-90.
`notification_contact_ids`	No	Replacement set of contact IDs from list-notification-contacts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With only a title annotation and no hints, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses partial-update semantics, null-clearing of optional fields, type immutability, and that notification_contact_ids replaces the whole contact set, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior on invalid fields, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the partial-update contract. No filler, though the contact-replacement note could sit more logically with the partial-update block.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics well but omits auth/permission prerequisites and return value, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small general rule (null clears optional fields) not stated per-parameter, but its replacement detail for notification_contact_ids is already in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a monitor') and adds scoping constraints (partial update, immutable type). It does not differentiate from siblings like toggle-monitor, which overlaps with the is_active mutation path, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Conveys how to use the tool (send only changed fields, null to clear) but never says when to prefer it over toggle-monitor for pausing, or when to use create-monitor instead. 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 All's Well tools Inspect

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

Need Help?