Skip to main content
Glama

Turn a monitor's alerts back on

unsilence_monitor
Idempotent

Ends a monitor's silence now, so its alerts are sent again.

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": {
      "monitor_id": "<monitor_id>"
    },
    "name": "unsilence_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monitor_idYesThe monitor id, from search or list_monitors.
organization_idNoThe organization. Leave it out when the token reaches only one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the effect is immediate ('now'), which is useful, but it does not say what happens if the monitor is not currently silenced or what permission is required to lift a silence.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the effect and outcome are front-loaded. It is arguably too terse to carry behavioral detail, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema descriptions and helpful annotations, the definition is close to sufficient, but it omits the no-op/invalid-state behavior an agent would want before calling it and does not name its counterpart tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (monitor_id, organization_id) are already documented in the schema, including where to find the monitor id. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is acceptable at full coverage but no more than baseline.

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 ('Ends a monitor's silence'), and the phrase 'so its alerts are sent again' makes the outcome concrete. It is implicitly the inverse of silence_monitor, but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation relies on the reader inferring it from the description's wording.

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?

The intended context (restoring alerts on a monitor) is implied by the purpose statement, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over silence_monitor, nor on prerequisites such as the monitor actually being silenced or the token's permission scope. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.