Skip to main content
Glama

hyperping

by com.hyperping

Update monitor

update_monitor

Patch a monitor. Pass only fields you want to change; others are preserved.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoTarget URL (http) or hostname (icmp/port/dns).
nameNoHuman-readable monitor name.
portNoTCP port — required when protocol is "port".
uuidYesUUID of the monitor to update.
pausedNoStart the monitor in a paused state.
regionsNoProbe region codes, e.g. ["us-east","eu-west"]. Use ["*"] for all.
timeoutNoRequest timeout in seconds (default 30).
group_idNoGroup to place the monitor in.
protocolNoCheck protocol. Defaults to "http".
alerts_waitNoMinutes to wait before alerting. -1 disables, 0 is immediate.
http_methodNoHTTP verb. Defaults to GET.
request_bodyNoBody for http requests.
dns_nameserverNoCustom nameserver for DNS checks.
check_frequencyNoCheck interval in seconds. Sub-30s requires a business plan.
dns_record_typeNoDNS record type (protocol="dns").
request_headersNoCustom request headers.
follow_redirectsNoFollow 3xx redirects on http monitors.
required_keywordNoBody must contain this keyword, else flagged down.
escalation_policyNoUUID of an escalation policy to link.
dns_expected_answerNoExpected DNS answer to assert against.
expected_status_codeNoExpected response status: number (200), "2xx", or "1xx-3xx".

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the patch behavior, omitting details like idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or permissions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 21 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It conveys the update nature but lacks information on required fields (uuid), error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds general patch semantics but does not enhance individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly states 'Patch a monitor', a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_monitor or pause_monitor.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on usage: 'Pass only fields you want to change; others are preserved.' This indicates a partial update pattern, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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

All hyperping toolsInspect
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.

Resources