Phare

Update an incident update

update_incident_update

DestructiveIdempotent

Update the state and message of an incident update by ID, the state of the incident is recalculated. Its publication date cannot be changed, no alert rule is triggered and the resolved state does not recover the incident. Only its author or a user with the incidents:moderate permission can update it.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "incident_id": "<incident_id>",
      "incident_update_id": "<incident_update_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_incident_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	No	State of the incident update
`content`	No	Content of the incident update
`project_id`	Yes	ID of the project to act on, see whoami
`incident_id`	Yes	ID of the incident
`published_at`	No	Date of publication of the incident update, defaults to the current date on creation. Must be within the last year and no more than 10 minutes in the future.
`incident_update_id`	Yes	ID of the incident update to update

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Incident update ID
`state`	No	State of the incident update
`content`	No	Content of the incident update
`creator`	No	Creator of the incident update
`created_at`	No	Date of creation for the entity
`updated_at`	No	Date of last update for the entity
`published_at`	No	Date of publication of the incident update, defaults to the current date on creation. Must be within the last year and no more than 10 minutes in the future.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "content": {
+      "description": "Content of the incident update",
+      "examples": [
+        "We are investigating the issue."
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "created_at": {
+      "description": "Date of creation for the entity",
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "creator": {
+      "description": "Creator of the incident update",
+      "properties": {
+        "id": {
+          "description": "Creator ID",
+          "examples": [
+            1
+          ],
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "label": {
+          "description": "Creator label",
+          "examples": [
+            "nicolas@phare.io"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": {
+          "description": "Creator type",
+          "enum": [
+            "user",
+            "api_key"
+          ],
+          "examples": [
+            "user"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Incident update ID",
+      "examples": [
+        1
+      ],
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "published_at": {
+      "description": "Date of publication of the incident update, defaults to the current date on creation. Must be within the last year and no more than 10 minutes in the future.",
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "description": "State of the incident update",
+      "enum": [
+        "unknown",
+        "investigating",
+        "identified",
+        "monitoring",
+        "resolved"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "updated_at": {
+      "description": "Date of last update for the entity",
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already declaring the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the parent incident's state is recalculated, no alert rule is triggered, `resolved` does not recover the incident, and the publication date is immutable. These side-effect and non-side-effect disclosures are exactly what an agent needs before mutating incident state.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and the constraints following. The second sentence is a run-on chaining four separate facts, which slightly hurts scanability but wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema available and rich annotations, the description covers permissions and side effects well. The one gap is the unresolved tension over whether `published_at` should be supplied, which matters for correct invocation of a six-parameter mutation 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the state enum and content bounds is already documented. The description adds meaning for `state` by explaining the parent incident is recalculated, but creates ambiguity for `published_at` by saying the publication date cannot be changed even though the schema exposes it as an input.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update the state and message of an incident update by ID'), which clearly separates this from update_incident and create_incident_update in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource naming is specific enough that an agent can disambiguate without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear qualifying context: only the author or a user with the `incidents:moderate` permission may call it, and it notes that the `resolved` state does not recover the incident, implicitly steering recovery to a different path. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool (recover_incident) for that case.

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

All Phare tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?