update_serviceUpdate a Rootly service's details by ID or slug, including name, description, owners, integrations, and alert settings.
Update a specific service by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the service (fills `{id}` in /v1/services/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `service_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 that this is a non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive mutation with open-world behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether updates are partial or full, how omitted fields are treated, or what permissions are required.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Its brevity is efficient, though it reflects under-specification rather than a complete summary.
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?
For a mutation tool with a large nested 'data' payload, output schema, and annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits the required request envelope and update semantics, so an agent must rely almost entirely on the schema and annotations to invoke it correctly.
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?
The description only confirms that the service is identified 'by id'. It does not explain the required 'data' JSON:API envelope, its required 'type' and 'attributes' fields, or the semantics of nested updatable attributes, leaving the complex payload to the schema and its partial descriptions.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Update a specific service') and includes the identifier ('by id'), which distinguishes it from get_service, create_service, and list_services. It stops short of describing what service fields can be updated or the scope of the update.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.