update_on_call_roleUpdate an on-call role by ID to change its name, system role type, and granular permissions for alerts, schedules, and other resources.
Update a specific On-Call Role by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the on call role (fills `{id}` in /v1/on_call_roles/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `on_call_role_id` argument. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context such as partial-vs-full update semantics or permission requirements — it adds none. Notably it omits that 'slug' is ignored/derived and that only user/custom system roles are editable, which live only in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally sound. But it is terse to the point of under-specification for a mutation tool with a deeply nested payload.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a nested JSON:API payload, dozens of permission fields, and no annotation coverage of update semantics, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the mutability rules and payload conventions are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the many permission arrays carry no description at all. The description contributes nothing about the 'data' envelope, the ignored 'data.id', or the deprecated 'slug', so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('On-Call Role') plus the identifying key ('by id'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings such as create_on_call_role or get_on_call_role, leaving the routing inference to the agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_on_call_role (read) or create_on_call_role (create), nor any prerequisites such as which roles are editable. The only usage signal is the implicit 'by id', which the schema already conveys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.