Stop monitoring a domain. Accepts the domain name or the host_id returned by list_monitors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Domain to stop monitoring | |
| host_id | No | UUID of the host (alternative to domain) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| removed_address | Yes |
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 provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's role is reduced. It adds that the tool accepts two types of identifiers, but does not discuss side effects or permissions beyond what annotations imply.
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, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then specifies the input options. Highly efficient.
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 simple input and presence of output schema, the description is adequate. It covers purpose and accepted inputs. Missing potential details like success/error behavior, but not critical for a straightforward removal tool.
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%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The tool description reiterates the parameter options ('domain name or host_id') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Stop monitoring a domain.' and the title 'Stop Monitoring a Domain' reinforces this. The verb 'stop' and resource 'monitoring a domain' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like add_monitor and list_monitors.
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 gives clear guidance on how to use the tool: accepts domain name or host_id from list_monitors. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct but some overlap exists between add_monitor/add_monitors (batch vs single) and export_monitors/list_monitors (export vs list). Descriptions help disambiguate, but an agent might initially confuse export_monitors with list_monitors.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., add_monitor, create_certificate, list_monitors). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
17 tools is reasonable for a TLS monitoring and certificate management server. Each tool serves a distinct function without significant bloat, though the deprecated register_beacon_order could be removed.
Covers core CRUD for monitors, certificate lifecycle (create, check propagation, finalize, renew, status, scan), account info, and team invites. Minor gaps: no batch remove_monitors, no monitor update, and no detailed certificate inspection beyond status.
