Skip to main content
Glama
mikimatsub

swsd-mcp

by mikimatsub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

swsd_update_incident

Destructive

Update an existing SWSD incident by ID, changing only the supplied fields. Does not retry on failure; use dedicated tools for state transitions or comments.

Instructions

Update an existing SWSD incident. Pass id and any fields to change. Only fields you provide are sent — others stay as-is. For state transitions prefer swsd_update_incident_state (safer wrapper); for assignment prefer swsd_assign_incident; for comments use swsd_add_incident_comment. WRITE — does not retry on transient failure. To set tenant-specific custom field values, pass custom_fields: [{name, value}] — call swsd_describe_custom_fields first to discover field names and (for Dropdowns) allowed values. Validated for Text, Dropdown, Number, Checkbox, and Date types.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesSWSD incident reference. Accepts either the internal id (>=7 digits, e.g. 180457930) or the human-facing number (<=6 digits, e.g. 60310). The handler auto-detects via digit count.
nameNoNew short title.
priorityNoNew priority name.
site_nameNoNew site name.
descriptionNoNew description (replaces existing).
category_nameNoNew category name.
custom_fieldsNoSet tenant-specific custom field values on the record. Multi_picklist and User-type fields are not yet supported by this tool (set those via the SWSD UI). Validated for Text, Dropdown, Number, Checkbox, and Date types.
department_nameNoNew department name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv2.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / category_name / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / custom_fields / items / properties / name / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • changedInput schema / properties / custom_fields / items / properties / value / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 100000,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / custom_fields / maxItems
      Added value: +100
    • addedInput schema / properties / department_name / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / maxLength
      Added value: +100000
    • addedInput schema / properties / priority / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / site_name / maxLength
      Added value: +500
  2. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds valuable beyond-annotation behavior: it sends only provided fields, does not retry on transient failure ('WRITE — does not retry'), and replaces the description whole. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 dense but well structured: purpose first, then alternatives, then operational warning, then custom-field details. Every clause earns its place and code-formatted identifiers improve scannability.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema write tool, the description covers selection, prerequisites, and side-effect semantics almost completely. It only omits the shape of the response or success/failure indicators; an agent might need that for a follow-up step, but this is a minor gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; however, the description adds the patch semantics (only provided fields sent) and reinforces the custom_fields payload shape and the need to discover field names/allowed values first. This is useful beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing SWSD incident.' It immediately explains the partial-update contract ('Pass `id` and any fields to change') and differentiates itself from sibling tools for state transitions, assignment, and comments. This gives an agent a clear identity for the tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly tells the agent when to avoid this tool: 'For state transitions prefer swsd_update_incident_state... for assignment prefer swsd_assign_incident; for comments use swsd_add_incident_comment.' It also specifies a prerequisite for custom fields ('call swsd_describe_custom_fields first'). This is model routing guidance.

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