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

saas-alerts-mcp

by am3cramirez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

saas_alerts_customers_update

Idempotent

Update an existing SaaS Alerts customer by ID with fields to change. Modify customer details directly through the API.

Instructions

Update an existing SaaS Alerts customer by ID.

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_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesFields to update
customer_idYesCustomer ID to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral specifics beyond what annotations already declare. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, nor does it mention permissions or side effects. Annotations already cover readOnly and destructive hints, but the description fails to add context on top of them.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff, effectively front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and annotation hints, the description is adequate. However, it could mention the partial-update behavior implied by 'Fields to update' or what success responses look like, though no output schema makes this less critical.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces 'by ID' and does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides for the 'body' and 'customer_id' parameters.

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 'Update an existing SaaS Alerts customer by ID' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, and get.

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 word 'existing' implies a prerequisite that the customer must already exist, providing a faint usage hint. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete.

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