get_monitor_uptimeUptime percentage over a date window, aggregated and optionally per day/hour/week/month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ISO end date. Default: now. | |
| from | No | ISO start date. Default: 30 days ago. | |
| resolution | No | Time grouping. Default "day". | |
| monitor_uuids | No | Restrict to these monitor UUIDs. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no data exists for the window. The description is too sparse to guide safe invocation.
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 sentence of 12 words, tightly focused on the core purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more detail (e.g., 'percentage' or 'SLA') could improve without harming conciseness.
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 simplicity (no required parameters, no output schema, moderate parameter count), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what but not the how or edge cases. For a straightforward query tool, it may suffice, but leaves ambiguity about exact return format.
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?
The schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds the context 'aggregated and optionally per day/hour/week/month' which relates to the resolution parameter, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. No parameters are clarified further.
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 tool returns uptime percentage over a date window with optional aggregation per day/hour/week/month. It effectively conveys the core function and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_monitor_response_time, though it doesn't explicitly call out differences.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_monitor_outages, get_monitor_anomalies). The description lacks context on prerequisites, ideal use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.