Update an uptime check by sending only the fields you want to change, so you can adjust targets, frequency, tags, or maintenance settings without replacing the full configuration.
Updates an uptime check. Send only the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body for updating an uptime check. Every field is optional - send only what should change. | |
| checkId | Yes | Uptime check to update. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral trait of partial updates (only send changed fields), but it does not describe permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond what the annotations provide.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core operation front-loaded followed by the most important usage constraint. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has a nested body with many optional fields, but the schema describes each one thoroughly and the description highlights the essential partial-update behavior. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not expected. A minor gap is the absence of any mention of checkId or response behavior, but the schema covers checkId and the description is otherwise sufficient.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and all nested fields. The description repeats the PATCH-like semantics already stated in the body schema description, without adding new parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Updates an uptime check"), which is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like gorelo_create_uptime_check or gorelo_get_uptime_check, but the verb and required checkId in the schema imply an existing-resource mutation.
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 sentence "Send only the fields you want to change" gives useful partial-update guidance. However, it does not explain when this tool should be chosen over create/get/list siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.