Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibeMK

vibeMK

by chexma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vibemk_update_rule

Update an existing monitoring rule by specifying its ID, with options to modify conditions, configuration, comment, or disable it.

Instructions

📝 Update rule - Modify existing monitoring rule

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": {
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "vibemk_update_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentNoRule comment
rule_idYesRule ID
disabledNoDisable rule
conditionsNoRule conditions
rule_configNoRule configuration

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.10

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it merely says 'modify existing monitoring rule.' It does not mention whether changes require activation, whether it is a partial or full update, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 a single, concise line that front-loads the primary verb and object. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has complex parameters like conditions and rule_config with no output schema or behavioral detail. The description is far too minimal for an agent to correctly invoke this update operation without additional context.

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?

The schema has descriptions for all parameters, but they are tautological (e.g., 'Rule comment', 'Rule conditions') and add no real meaning. Because coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the descriptions do not clarify expected structures or formats.

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 that the tool updates/modifies an existing monitoring rule, which distinguishes it from create/delete/move operations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus creating, deleting, or moving rules. No prerequisites, expected inputs, or conditions for use are described.

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