hyperping

Create monitor

create_monitor

Create a new monitor. Requires name+url; add "port" for port checks, "dns_*" for DNS checks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Target URL (http) or hostname (icmp/port/dns).
`name`	Yes	Human-readable monitor name.
`port`	No	TCP port — required when protocol is "port".
`paused`	No	Start the monitor in a paused state.
`regions`	No	Probe region codes, e.g. ["us-east","eu-west"]. Use ["*"] for all.
`timeout`	No	Request timeout in seconds (default 30).
`group_id`	No	Group to place the monitor in.
`protocol`	No	Check protocol. Defaults to "http".
`alerts_wait`	No	Minutes to wait before alerting. -1 disables, 0 is immediate.
`http_method`	No	HTTP verb. Defaults to GET.
`request_body`	No	Body for http requests.
`dns_nameserver`	No	Custom nameserver for DNS checks.
`check_frequency`	No	Check interval in seconds. Sub-30s requires a business plan.
`dns_record_type`	No	DNS record type (protocol="dns").
`request_headers`	No	Custom request headers.
`follow_redirects`	No	Follow 3xx redirects on http monitors.
`required_keyword`	No	Body must contain this keyword, else flagged down.
`escalation_policy`	No	UUID of an escalation policy to link.
`dns_expected_answer`	No	Expected DNS answer to assert against.
`expected_status_code`	No	Expected response status: number (200), "2xx", or "1xx-3xx".

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states creation (mutation) but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or expected response format. This is a significant gap.

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?

The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core requirement. It is efficient but could include more context without being overly verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 20 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It only addresses three parameters, leaving agents without guidance on many fields and expected results.

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%, providing baselines for all parameters. The description adds minimal value by grouping 'port' and 'dns_*' but does not explain other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states 'Create a new monitor' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_monitor. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other tools beyond the verb.

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 description gives minimal guidance: 'Requires name+url; add "port" for port checks, "dns_*" for DNS checks.' It implies context but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and does not mention prerequisites like permissions.

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

All hyperping 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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a specific resource or action (monitor, outage, escalation policy, etc.) with clear naming. No two tools could be easily confused; even similar ones like get_monitor_outages and get_monitor_anomalies serve distinct purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, pause_, resume_, search_, update_) and use snake_case uniformly. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

With 26 tools, the set is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, but each tool serves a distinct monitoring function (monitors, outages, escalations, integrations, schedules, alerts, team members). The count is reasonable for the domain.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is heavily read-oriented, lacking create/update/delete for most resource types (escalation policies, integrations, on-call schedules, outages). Even monitors lack a delete tool. This leaves significant gaps for administrative workflows.

Create monitor

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources