Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
saas-alerts-mcp

saas-alerts-mcp

by am3cramirez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

saas_alerts_customers_set_whitelists

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace a customer's IP and country whitelist, overwriting current settings. Confirm with the user before invoking.

Instructions

⚠ HIGH-IMPACT. Replace the IP/country whitelist for a customer. This overwrites the existing whitelist. Confirm with the user before invoking.

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": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "saas_alerts_customers_set_whitelists"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesWhitelist payload (IPs and/or country codes)
customer_idYesCustomer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying that it overwrites the existing whitelist and requires user confirmation. This is valuable for an agent assessing consequences.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the HIGH-IMPACT warning. Every word is necessary.

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?

The description covers the core destructive nature and confirmation requirement, but leaves the 'body' structure underspecified. The schema also lacks nested property definitions, so an agent cannot construct a valid payload without further details.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics, and the 'body' parameter description only says 'Whitelist payload (IPs and/or country codes)' without structural detail, so it does not elevate beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool replaces the IP/country whitelist for a customer, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'saas_alerts_customers_set_account_whitelists', relying on the 'customer' scope.

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 provides clear usage context with the HIGH-IMPACT warning and instructs to confirm with the user before invoking. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the customer-level scope is implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools