Skip to main content
Glama

spikesh

by io.usefulapi

Set incident priority

spike_set_incident_priority
Destructive

Sets the PRIORITY (p1..p5) on one or more incidents — this CHANGES live incident state. Spike: POST /incidents/priority with {ids:[...], priority}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesIncident ids (the incident `_id` values) to update.
teamIdNoThe 24-char hex team _id to scope this request to (x-team-id). Omit to use the configured default (SPIKE_TEAM_ID). List ids with spike_list_teams.
priorityYesPriority level: p1 (highest) .. p5 (lowest).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it changes live incident state and shows the API endpoint, which is useful but does not detail side effects, idempotency, or required permissions beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no fluff, front-loading the key action and priority range, then providing the API detail.

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?

For a mutation tool with destructiveHint and full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and endpoint. Missing output details are acceptable as no output schema exists.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool sets priority on incidents with specific levels (p1..p5) and highlights it changes live state, differentiating it from read-only sibling tools like spike_get_incident.

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 description implies mutation but does not explicitly contrast with sibling mutation tools (e.g., spike_resolve_incidents, spike_acknowledge_incidents) or provide when to use priority setting over other actions.

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

All spikesh toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., incidents, escalations, on-calls, services, teams) with no overlap. Incident tools are further subdivided by status and action, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a 'spike_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case. Verbs are consistently action-oriented (list, get, acknowledge, resolve, set), with only one longer name (spike_who_is_on_call_next) that still fits the pattern.

Tool Count5/5

16 tools is well-scoped for an incident management server. It covers listing, fetching, and mutating incidents, plus supporting resources (escalations, on-calls, services, teams) without being overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core incident lifecycle (trigger, acknowledge, resolve, priority) and provides read access to related resources. Minor gaps exist (no create/update/delete for non-incident resources), but the set is complete for typical incident response workflows.

Resources