librenms-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Alert Rule Edit

alert_rule_edit

DestructiveIdempotent

Edit an existing LibreNMS alert rule by rule ID, updating conditions, severity, thresholds, delays, mute, or notes through librenms-mcp.

Instructions

Edit an existing alert rule in LibreNMS.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	Yes	Alert rule edit payload (must include rule_id field): - rule_id (required): Integer rule ID to edit. Without it LibreNMS would create a new rule, so the tool refuses the call. - name: Rule name - builder: Rule builder JSON with conditions - devices: Array of device IDs or [-1] for all devices - severity: ok, warning, critical - count: Trigger threshold count - delay: Delay before alerting in seconds - interval: Re-alert interval in seconds - mute: Mute alerts (true/false) - invert: Invert rule logic (true/false) - notes: Rule notes - disabled: Disable rule (0/1)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.12.0Oct 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / payload / description

Previous value: -"Alert rule edit payload (must include rule_id field):\n- rule_id (required): Rule ID to edit\n- name: Rule name\n- builder: Rule builder JSON with conditions\n- devices: Array of device IDs or [-1] for all devices\n- severity: ok, warning, critical\n- count: Trigger threshold count\n- delay: Delay before alerting in seconds\n- interval: Re-alert interval in seconds\n- mute: Mute alerts (true/false)\n- invert: Invert rule logic (true/false)\n- notes: Rule notes\n- disabled: Disable rule (0/1)"New value: +"Alert rule edit payload (must include rule_id field):\n- rule_id (required): Integer rule ID to edit. Without it LibreNMS would create a new\n  rule, so the tool refuses the call.\n- name: Rule name\n- builder: Rule builder JSON with conditions\n- devices: Array of device IDs or [-1] for all devices\n- severity: ok, warning, critical\n- count: Trigger threshold count\n- delay: Delay before alerting in seconds\n- interval: Re-alert interval in seconds\n- mute: Mute alerts (true/false)\n- invert: Invert rule logic (true/false)\n- notes: Rule notes\n- disabled: Disable rule (0/1)"

First observedv1.9.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what a destructive edit overwrites, no auth/permission requirement, no idempotency explanation backing the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than ideal economy.

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?

Output schema and full parameter coverage remove the need to explain returns or fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is routing among the many alert_rule/alert siblings, which the description does not address.

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% and the payload field documents every rule attribute plus the rule_id requirement in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Edit an existing alert rule") and the word "existing" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling alert_rule_add. It never names the alternatives (alert_rule_add, alert_rule_delete, alert_rule_get) that sit in the same family, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance. With three close siblings (alert_rule_add, alert_rule_delete, alert_rule_get) an agent gets no help deciding among them.

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

Deploy Server