Modify an alert's configuration by specifying only the fields to change, such as target, channel, cooldown, or enabled status, leaving other settings intact.
Update an alert configuration. Only the fields you provide are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| jobId | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| channel | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| cooldownMinutes | No | ||
| consecutiveFailuresThreshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait — omitted fields are preserved rather than reset — which is exactly the kind of mutation semantics an agent needs. But it omits permission requirements, error behavior for unknown ids, and whether changing channel forces target re-validation.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The partial-update constraint follows the purpose statement in exactly the right order.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 8 undocumented parameters, this description is too thin. An agent can form the request but cannot tell what the tool will do on partial failure, invalid ids, or how channel/target interact — all of which matter for a write operation.
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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never names a single field: the meaning of jobId (can it be nulled?), the enums on channel, the cooldownMinutes unit, or consecutiveFailuresThreshold semantics are all left to the caller to infer from property names and constraints alone.
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 and resource: 'Update an alert configuration.' An agent understands the intent immediately. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings such as create_alert, delete_alert, or list_alerts beyond the verb itself, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
'Only the fields you provide are changed' implies PATCH-style partial-update semantics, which is a genuine usage signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does the alert need to exist? can you clear jobId?), and no routing away from create_alert or get_alert.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.