monitors_updateUpdate a monitor's name, schedule, webhook endpoint, spend cap, or status (pause/resume).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| minutes | No | ||
| timezone | No | ||
| expression | No | ||
| spendCapCredits | No | ||
| webhookEndpointId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so this is a mutation, which aligns with the description's 'Update'. The description adds the scope of what can be updated (fields list), providing some behavioral context beyond the simple mutation flag, but it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites such as permissions. The description is consistent with annotations and adds a small amount of detail.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the updateable aspects. There is no wasted wording, and it is easy to scan.
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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It fails to explain the scheduling configuration (how type, minutes, and expression interact), the fact that only the provided parameters are updated, or what the response might contain. The description leaves critical operational details to be inferred by the agent, making it inadequate for correct invocation without additional investigation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the tool description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It groups fields (name, schedule, webhook endpoint, spend cap, status) but does not clarify the semantics of each parameter, such as the relationship between type, minutes, and expression for schedule, or how webhookEndpointId and spendCapCredits should be used. There is no mention of optionality beyond the required id, and the enum values for type and status are left unexplained.
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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'a monitor', and enumerates the specific aspects that can be changed (name, schedule, webhook endpoint, spend cap, status). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like monitors_create, monitors_delete, and monitors_get.
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?
The purpose implies that this tool is for modifying an existing monitor, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools like monitors_create or monitors_delete. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, so usage context is only inferred from the tool's name and the update semantics.
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 is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.