Skip to main content
Glama

alerts_create

Create a SQL alert that evaluates a saved query and notifies subscribers when a condition is satisfied.

Instructions

Create a new SQL alert. Returns id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAlert name
query_idYesID of the saved query to evaluate
conditionYesTrigger condition: {'op': '>' | '<' | '>=' | '<=' | '==' | '!=', 'operand': 'VALUE' | 'COLUMN_NAME', 'threshold': {...}}
notifyNoNotify settings: {'subscribers': [{'destination', 'user_id' | 'destination_id' | 'webhook_id'}]}
optionsNo
rearmNoRearm settings after firing (seconds or null)
scheduleNo
parentNoParent folder/workspace path
evaluationNoEvaluation settings: {'last_eval_run_id', 'state', 'comparison'}
run_as_roleNoOWNER | VIEWER
custom_subjectNo
custom_bodyNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, consistent with create. However, the description does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, or required permissions. It only mentions returning the id, leaving behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is very short (two clauses) and front-loaded with core purpose. No wasted words, but could add a bit more context without harming conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 12 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the workflow, required query existence, or how parameters like condition work together. Additional context is needed.

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 has 67% parameter description coverage, providing moderate detail. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Create a new SQL alert' with a clear verb and resource. It specifies the return value is the id. It is not differentiated from sibling tools like alerts_update or alerts_get, but the create action is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing query), when not to use, or comparisons with other alert tools like alerts_update.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/inav/databricks-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server