SignalRaven

Update a person’s monitoring

update_person_monitoring

Destructive

Change how long a person is monitored (a new period runs from today), their relevance level (admitLevel 2 or 3, from the next check), or pause (isActive false) and resume (isActive true) the weekly checks. Resuming a monitor whose period ran out starts a fresh period of the same length. Paused monitors cost nothing. The person is checked weekly for posts, reposts, comments and reactions that match your ICP; someone with nothing new is checked every two weeks, then monthly, and weekly again as soon as they do something. Each check costs 1 credit, plus 0.25 credit per item read and 1 credit per signal delivered. Monitored people are unlimited and are not counted against your source limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The monitored person id (from list_monitored_people).
`isActive`	No	false pauses the weekly checks; true resumes them.
`admitLevel`	No	What counts as a signal for this person. 2 (default): stated needs only — activity whose text states a need, pain or buying moment your product addresses. 3: also topic interest — professional content about your category with no stated need, delivered as topic-interest signals (metadata.topicInterest true) with a strength floor of 5 instead of 8.
`periodDays`	No	How long to monitor: 30, 90 or 180 days, or null for no end date. Default 90.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cta`	No	Present in sample mode: how to get live data.
`data`	Yes	The result, or null when nothing matched.
`mode`	Yes	live: the caller's workspace. sample: illustrative data for accounts without an approved workspace.
`notice`	No	Present in sample mode: explains that the data is illustrative.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / admitLevel

Added value: +{
+  "description": "What counts as a signal for this person. 2 (default): stated needs only — activity whose text states a need, pain or buying moment your product addresses. 3: also topic interest — professional content about your category with no stated need, delivered as topic-interest signals (metadata.topicInterest true) with a strength floor of 5 instead of 8.",
+  "enum": [
+    2,
+    3
+  ],
+  "type": "integer"
+}

AddedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but give no cost or side-effect detail; the description supplies a full cost model (1 credit per check, 0.25 per item read, 1 per signal), states paused monitors cost nothing, that a new period runs from today, that resume restarts the full period, and that monitored people are unlimited. This is exactly the supplementary context annotations cannot carry.

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?

The mutating actions are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence carries concrete information. The cadence and pricing block is dense but relevant to a tool that controls a billable monitor, though it runs long for a four-parameter update.

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 mutation tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description completes the picture: side effects of each field, cost implications, resume semantics, and quota impact. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds timing semantics the schema lacks: admitLevel changes apply 'from the next check' and a new period 'runs from today'. isActive true/false largely restates the schema, keeping this below 5.

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 names the specific verb (Change) and the exact attributes it mutates: monitoring length, relevance level, and pause/resume state. It is easy to distinguish from monitor_person (creation) and stop_monitoring_person (removal), but it never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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 implied through behavioral detail ('Resuming a monitor whose period ran out starts a fresh period') but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer stop_monitoring_person over isActive=false, and no prerequisites.

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

All SignalRaven 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.