Import a JobMonitor from JSON definition into LogicMonitor, with options to handle naming conflicts and preserve existing fields.
Import a JobMonitor from JSON (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| definition | Yes | JobMonitor JSON definition | |
| handle_conflict | No | How to handle naming conflicts with existing modules | |
| fields_to_preserve | No | Fields to preserve from existing module when overwriting |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate write behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description adds a note about requiring write permission, which is consistent but does not go beyond annotations. It does not disclose behavior on conflict, overwrite semantics, or whether existing JobMonitors are affected. No contradiction found.
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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. No wasted words; it is appropriately front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's complexity—a nested definition object, conflict handling, and field preservation—the description is minimal. It does not explain what a JobMonitor is, how to structure the JSON, or what happens on conflict. The schema covers parameter types but not context like expected usage patterns or edge cases. An agent would need to infer a lot from the schema alone.
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 100%, so all three parameters (definition, handle_conflict, fields_to_preserve) are documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action (import), the resource (JobMonitor), and the source format (JSON). It is specific and distinguishes from other import tools by naming the target resource type. No ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 tool versus alternatives like creating a JobMonitor from scratch or using an update tool. The only note is about write permission, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage condition. It does not mention conflict resolution or when to use handle_conflict.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.