Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PatrolTech

by online.patroltech
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Propose updating an incident

patroltech_incidents_propose_update

Use when you want to change the status of, assign or comment on an incident. It only adds a proposal to the pending batch of this connection (up to 10 changes); nothing changes in the account yet. Show the returned summaries to the user and call patroltech_proposals_confirm only after they agree.

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": {
      "incident": "<incident>"
    },
    "name": "patroltech_incidents_propose_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoNew status: open, in_progress (it must be assigned), resolved (needs a comment), closed (FINAL) or dismissed (needs a comment; FINAL). Omit it if it does not change.
commentNoComment to add. Required for resolved and dismissed (the reason).
assignToNoDashboard user to assign it to (name or email), or "me" for the user themself. Omit it if it is not reassigned.
incidentYesTitle of the incident (or part of it), or its `id` as listed by the incident list.
organizationNoOmit unless the account has more than one organization; then the exact name (or id) as listed by patroltech_account_get_context.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds the crucial trait annotations cannot express: nothing is applied to the account yet, the effect is a queued proposal subject to a 10-change cap, and confirmation is a separate human-gated step. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations leave out.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, followed by the effect and the required next step. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: deferred-effect semantics, the batch ceiling, and the confirm handoff. It references 'returned summaries' so the agent knows something actionable comes back despite the absent output schema.

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% and the enum, maxLength, and conditional requirements (comment required for resolved/dismissed, assignment required for in_progress) are all documented in the schema itself. The description only names the three field families at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific set of verbs and the resource: change status, assign, or comment on an incident. It also immediately clarifies that the action is a proposal, which separates it from the sibling confirm tool and from read tools like patroltech_incidents_get.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit trigger ('Use when you want to change the status of, assign or comment on an incident'), an explicit batch limit (up to 10 changes), and an explicit follow-up protocol: show summaries, then call patroltech_proposals_confirm only after the user agrees. Both when-to-use and what-to-do-next are covered.

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

All PatrolTech toolsInspect
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.

Resources