Skip to main content
Glama
mikimatsub

swsd-mcp

by mikimatsub

swsd_update_incident

Destructive

Update an existing SolarWinds Service Desk incident by providing its ID and only the fields you want to change. Other fields stay as-is.

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. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. 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
  3. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false): it discloses partial-update semantics ('Only fields you provide are sent — others stay as-is'), that it does not retry on transient failure, and that custom-field types like Multi_picklist/User are unsupported. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then alternative routing, then write/behavioral caveats, then parameter detail. Dense but every clause earns its place; slightly long, preventing a full 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive write tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial missing context: partial-update behavior, non-retry on transient failure, and custom-field constraints. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 nested schema already documents id auto-detection, custom_fields format, and Date/Dropdown/Checkbox value rules. The description largely restates these and repeats the 'call swsd_describe_custom_fields first' guidance already in the schema, so added value is marginal — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing SWSD incident') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming swsd_update_incident_state, swsd_assign_incident, and swsd_add_incident_comment. An agent can tell exactly what this tool owns versus its neighbors.

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?

Explicit when-to-use-elsewhere routing: state transitions go to swsd_update_incident_state, assignments to swsd_assign_incident, comments to swsd_add_incident_comment. It also states the scope of a generic update (only provided fields are sent). Nothing is left to inference.

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