Skip to main content
Glama
jamesbrink

MCP Server for Coroot

update_inspection_config

Modify inspection settings for applications in Coroot to customize monitoring of CPU, memory, SLO, and other performance metrics.

Instructions

Update inspection configuration for an application.

Updates the configuration for a specific inspection type. Configuration format depends on the inspection type.

Args: project_id: Project ID app_id: Application ID (format: namespace/kind/name) inspection_type: Type of inspection (cpu, memory, slo, etc) config: New configuration (format varies by type)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
app_idYes
inspection_typeYes
configYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler function decorated with @mcp.tool(), which handles input parameters, calls the implementation wrapper, and returns standardized response.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def update_inspection_config(
        project_id: str,
        app_id: str,
        inspection_type: str,
        config: dict[str, Any],
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Update inspection configuration for an application.
    
        Updates the configuration for a specific inspection type.
        Configuration format depends on the inspection type.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID
            app_id: Application ID (format: namespace/kind/name)
            inspection_type: Type of inspection (cpu, memory, slo, etc)
            config: New configuration (format varies by type)
        """
        return await update_inspection_config_impl(  # type: ignore[no-any-return]
            project_id, app_id, inspection_type, config
        )
  • Implementation wrapper that calls the CorootClient method and formats the success response with error handling decorator.
    @handle_errors
    async def update_inspection_config_impl(
        project_id: str,
        app_id: str,
        inspection_type: str,
        config: dict[str, Any],
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Update inspection configuration."""
        result = await get_client().update_inspection_config(
            project_id, app_id, inspection_type, config
        )
        return {
            "success": True,
            "message": f"{inspection_type} inspection configured successfully",
            "config": result,
        }
  • Core API client method that performs the HTTP POST request to Coroot API to update the inspection configuration.
    async def update_inspection_config(
        self, project_id: str, app_id: str, inspection_type: str, config: dict[str, Any]
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Update inspection configuration for an application.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID.
            app_id: Application ID.
            inspection_type: Type of inspection (cpu, memory, slo, etc).
            config: New configuration.
    
        Returns:
            Updated configuration.
        """
        # URL encode the app_id since it contains slashes
        from urllib.parse import quote
    
        encoded_app_id = quote(app_id, safe="")
    
        response = await self._request(
            "POST",
            f"/api/project/{project_id}/app/{encoded_app_id}/inspection/{inspection_type}/config",
            json=config,
        )
        return self._parse_json_response(response)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing configurations. The mention that 'Configuration format depends on the inspection type' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the complexity. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description covers parameters adequately but lacks behavioral transparency. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but critical mutation details (permissions, side effects) are missing, making it incomplete for safe usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters: project_id, app_id (with format), inspection_type (with examples), and config (with format variability). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on valid inspection types or config 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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'inspection configuration for an application', specifying it's for a specific inspection type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_inspection_config' (read vs. write) and 'configure_*' tools (general configuration vs. inspection-specific), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 description implies usage when updating inspection configuration for a specific type, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'configure_integration' or 'update_application_risks'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives are mentioned.

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/jamesbrink/mcp-coroot'

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