update_monitor_subscriptionIdempotently updates label or policy. It never activates monitoring, pays, or changes networks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| policy | No | ||
| subscriptionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false; the description independently states idempotency and adds useful non-effects: no activation, no payment, no network change. It does not cover replacement semantics or error behavior when a subscription is missing, but it goes beyond the annotations meaningfully.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loads the actionable verb, and every clause adds signal. The negative non-effects list is compact and relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with a complex nested policy object and no output schema, the description does not say whether policy is replaced wholesale, whether the subscription must already exist, or what a successful update returns. The schema constraints cover input shape, but lifecycle and result behavior are left unstated; still, the scope is clear enough for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have zero schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It maps 'label or policy' to two params, but gives no detail on subscriptionId and no semantics for the nested policy object beyond what the schema's field names show. This is only partial compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('updates'), names the resource ('monitor subscription') and the mutable fields ('label or policy'). The negative clause distinguishing activation/payment/network changes prevents confusion with register/stop sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It makes the intended use clear: change an existing subscription's label or policy, idempotently. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'never activates/pays/changes networks' exclusions help route away from registration/activation flows. This is clear context without full alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool pairs a single verb with a distinct resource or action, and descriptions explicitly separate state-changing, state-free, verification, and list/get operations. Even similar tools like the two challenge creators are clearly differentiated by challenge type (DNS TXT vs endpoint), so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using clear verbs like create, get, list, register, stop, update, and verify. The monitor_ prefix is used uniformly for monitor-related resources, while distinct domains such as risk and capabilities have their own readable nouns.
At 17 tools, the set is slightly heavier than the typical well-scoped range, but each tool covers a distinct operation across subscriptions, endpoints, alerts, policy evaluation, and risk verification. The count is reasonable given the breadth of the platform.
Core read and write operations exist for subscriptions, endpoints, and alerts, but lifecycle coverage has notable gaps: there is no endpoint get/update/delete, no subscription activation/resume, and no way to enable delivery after verification. Several workflows end at stopped or pending states unless external actions occur.