Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pagerlane MCP Connector

Pagerlane MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

keep_enrich_alert

Idempotent

Add string enrichment key-value data to a Keep alert by fingerprint, with an optional dry-run preview via omitted confirm. Use it to attach context for triage before executing the write.

Instructions

Enrich an alert. POST /alerts/enrich with fingerprint and a string enrichments map. Optional dispose_on_new_alert (API default false). Omit confirm for a dry-run preview.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fingerprint": "<fingerprint>",
      "enrichments": "<enrichments>"
    },
    "name": "keep_enrich_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoSet to the boolean true to execute the write. Omit this field for a dry-run preview. false and the string true are rejected.
enrichmentsYesString enrichment map. Keep's EnrichAlertRequestBody uses dict[str, str].
fingerprintYesKeep alert fingerprint.
dispose_on_new_alertNoKeep query flag. API default is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that omitting confirm produces a dry-run preview rather than a write, which clarifies the two-phase behavior. It does not disclose what enrichment actually changes on the alert or what an enrich call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences with no filler, and the operation and endpoint are front-loaded. The telegraphic style (bare endpoint, parenthetical default) is efficient but borders on terse, leaving the reader to infer some relationships.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what an enrich call returns or how to confirm success, and it does not. Given a nested enrichments object and a gated confirm flag, the definition is adequate to invoke the tool but incomplete about outcomes and error behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates it: fingerprint and the string enrichments map, plus dispose_on_new_alert with the API default of false. The phrase "string enrichments map" reinforces that values must be strings, but nothing new is added about key/value semantics or fingerprint sourcing. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Enrich an alert") and names the underlying endpoint POST /alerts/enrich, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as keep_get_alert or keep_update_incident, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 only usage guidance is the dry-run note ("Omit confirm for a dry-run preview"), which implies a safe way to trial the call before committing. There is no statement of when to use this versus reading/acknowledging/resolving a sibling alert tool, and no prerequisites are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools