Orchestra MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update incident settings

update_incident_settings

Change the workspace's incident settings and return all of them. Settings left out of the body keep their current value.

Instructions

Change the workspace's incident settings and return all of them. Settings left out of the body keep their current value.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`environmentIds`	No	Only failures from these environments open or join an incident; leave it empty for every environment.
`warningsEnabled`	No
`incidentsEnabled`	No
`autoResolveOnSuccess`	No	Resolve an open incident once every resource it covers has succeeded again.
`maxAlertsPerIncident`	No	Cap on the number of live alerts sent for a single incident before further updates are rolled into a single rollup notice instead of sent individually. This budget applies to each alert destination.
`autoDiagnoseIncidents`	No	Have Orchestra's diagnoser investigate incidents as they open and grow.
`X-Orchestra-Account-Id`	No	Act on this account rather than the one the credential resolves to. Omit it to use the credential's own account. An API key is issued to a single account, so it may only name that account; an OAuth token may name any account its grant covers.
`groupWarningWithFailed`	No
`requireAlertConfigured`	No
`alertBudgetRefillCadence`	No	How often the budget above comes back. Never means it is spent once per incident and does not return until the incident is resolved.	daily
`requireDefaultBranchOrPublishedVersion`	No	Only raise incidents for runs on a Git-backed pipeline's default branch, or of an Orchestra-backed pipeline's published version.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2026.10.12-0Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the merge semantics and that the full settings set is returned, but says nothing about whether omitted fields revert to the schema-declared defaults (false/true/'daily') or truly retain current values — an ambiguity that matters for a settings mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The mutation is front-loaded and the partial-update rule follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant fact is not buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so not enumerating return fields is fine, and the description confirms all settings are returned. For an 11-parameter mutation with zero required fields, the merge rule is the key missing-risk item and it is present; only the default-vs-retain conflict and lack of sibling routing keep it from a 5.

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 64% across 11 parameters, so roughly a third are undocumented in the schema (warningsEnabled, incidentsEnabled, groupWarningWithFailed, requireAlertConfigured are bare). The description only adds the collective 'omitted = unchanged' rule rather than explaining any individual parameter, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap — baseline 3.

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 (change) and resource (workspace incident settings) and notes the return behavior (all settings). It's clear what the tool does, but it never names its read counterpart get_incident_settings or the related update_incident, so sibling differentiation is left to the reader.

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 sentence 'Settings left out of the body keep their current value' gives real guidance on how to call it (partial/PATCH semantics), which matters for a zero-required-parameter tool. However, it never says when to reach for this versus get_incident_settings or update_incident, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server