get_monitorGet a single monitor by ID, including status, uptime, regions, and settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context about returned fields (status, uptime, regions, settings), but does not disclose error handling or authorization details. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Every part adds value, clearly conveying the tool's action and scope.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description suffices. It mentions what data is included (status, uptime, etc.), but omits potential error conditions or authentication requirements. Still quite complete given the tool's straightforward nature.
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% for the 'id' parameter (described as 'Monitor ID'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by ID', so 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 'Get a single monitor by ID' with specific resources (status, uptime, regions, settings). It distinguishes from siblings like list_monitors (which returns multiple monitors) and create_monitor (which creates).
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?
The description implies use when needing details on a single monitor by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_monitors or get_incident. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose with no overlapping functionality. Tools like create_monitor and update_monitor are clearly differentiated by action, and pause_monitor/resume_monitor are opposites. Lists are scoped to different resource types.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_monitor, list_domains, pause_monitor) with no mixing of conventions, making the set predictable for an agent.
13 tools is well-scoped for an uptime monitoring server, covering essential CRUD-like operations, lifecycle management, and list queries without excess.
The tool set covers core monitoring workflows (create, read, update, pause/resume monitors; list incidents, domains, etc.) but lacks a delete monitor tool, which is a minor gap.