mcp-server

Update monitor

update_monitor

Idempotent

Update a monitor's settings (name, url, interval, inverted, …). Cannot delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Monitor ID
`url`	No	New target: URL for http, host for ping/smtp, host:port for tcp
`name`	No	New display name
`type`	No	New check type
`group`	No	New group name
`regions`	No	New probe region list
`inverted`	No	Enable/disable exposure monitoring (alert when reachable)
`timeout_seconds`	No	New request timeout in seconds
`interval_seconds`	No	New check interval in seconds
`expected_status_codes`	No	HTTP status codes considered up

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The resource object

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations show idempotent, non-readonly, non-destructive. Description adds constraint 'Cannot delete,' which is not in annotations. However, it does not mention partial update behavior (only provided fields are updated). Overall, good transparency beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence with clear verb, resource, examples, and constraint. No redundant information. Front-loaded with action. Excellent conciseness.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with 10 parameters fully described in schema and with annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a constraint. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. Minor omission: partial update behavior could be stated, but overall complete for an update tool.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. The description only lists examples (name, url, interval, inverted) which adds no new information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description does not enhance schema semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Update a monitor's settings' and lists examples, explicitly noting 'Cannot delete.' This distinguishes from sibling tools like create_monitor, get_monitor, pause_monitor, etc. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It is implied by context, but lacks explicit guidance such as 'Use this to modify existing monitors; for new monitors, use create_monitor.' The 'Cannot delete' provides a constraint but no positive usage advice.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well-scoped for an uptime monitoring server, covering essential CRUD-like operations, lifecycle management, and list queries without excess.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?