Mockbird

uptime_monitor

Free downtime alerts for any public URL — no account, armed in one call. action:"create" {url, notify?}: Mockbird GETs the url every 30 minutes from Cloudflare's network (8s timeout, 2xx/3xx = up); with notify, that webhook gets ONE message when it goes down and ONE when it recovers — debounced (two consecutive checks must agree), so single blips never fire. WITHOUT notify you get a pollable monitor instead — no webhook infrastructure needed. notify formats: hooks.slack.com URLs get {"text"}, discord.com/api/webhooks get {"content"}, anything else gets JSON signed with the returned secret (x-mockbird-signature: sha256=hex(hmac-sha256(secret, body))). The result includes the CURRENT up/down state (checked immediately), a public hostname-only status page /status/:id, an embeddable badge.svg, an Atom feed, and {id, secret} — STORE BOTH; they manage the monitor and cannot be recovered. action:"poll" {id, secret}: (webhook-less monitors) the down/recovered transitions since your last poll plus the latest check — empty events = nothing changed. action:"info" {id, secret}: latest check, 24h ok-rate, recent up/down transitions, alert delivery state. action:"delete" {id, secret}: stop monitoring. Limits: 3 live monitors per IP — deleting one frees the slot immediately (the 429 states the limit); pollable monitors not polled for 30 days are removed. For cron jobs / scheduled tasks use the inverse tool: heartbeat.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	poll/info/delete: the monitor id (mon-…) returned by create.
`url`	No	create: the public https URL to watch (e.g. https://api.example.com/health).
`action`	Yes	What to do.
`notify`	No	create (optional): the webhook URL to alert (Slack/Discord webhook, or any HTTPS endpoint — gets HMAC-signed JSON). Omit it to get a pollable monitor instead.
`secret`	No	poll/info/delete: the secret returned by create.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and meets it comprehensively: 30-minute polling, 8s timeout, 2xx/3xx up criteria, debounced alerts, one down/one up message, webhook format variations, HMAC signature details, limits, and 30-day removal for unpolled monitors. It also warns that id/secret cannot be recovered. No contradictions.

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?

The text is dense but well organized: a one-line value proposition, then action-by-action behavior, then limits and alternative routing. Each clause carries unique information — webhook formats, debounce behavior, badge/feed/status page, retention policy — without filler. Every sentence earns its place for a multi-action tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description needs to convey return semantics, and it does: create returns current state, status page, badge.svg, Atom feed, and id/secret; poll returns transitions and latest check; info and delete cover their own results. Limits, retention, and alternative tool usage are also covered, making the tool fully invocable by an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema has 100% coverage, the description adds operational meaning beyond parameter names: id and secret jointly manage the monitor and are irrecoverable, notify behaves differently per endpoint type, poll returns transitions since last poll with empty events meaning no change, and delete immediately frees a slot. This far exceeds the schema's basic descriptions.

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 opening line 'Free downtime alerts for any public URL' states the tool's core purpose with a specific verb and resource. It then enumerates four concrete actions (create, poll, info, delete) and explicitly names heartbeat as the inverse tool, so an agent can clearly distinguish it from siblings.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: webhook-based alerts vs pollable monitors depending on whether notify is supplied, and directs cron/scheduled users to the heartbeat sibling. It does not mention other monitoring siblings like check_api_status or watch_service_status, so it is not a perfect 5, but it provides strong contextual usage rules.

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

All Mockbird 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource or action: project creation, data seeding, record CRUD, traffic inspection, snapshots, and monitoring are all clearly separated. The four monitoring-related tools are carefully differentiated with cross-references, so an agent is unlikely to misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most data and lifecycle tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (add_resource, create_project, query_records, write_record), but several tools use noun phrases instead (heartbeat, snapshots, project_info, uptime_monitor, custom_route). The split is readable but not a consistent convention.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is a reasonable, well-scoped size for a combined mock-API platform and monitoring utility. Each tool has a distinct job, and the monitoring tools complement the mock-API lifecycle tools without feeling redundant.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers project creation/deletion, resource seeding, record CRUD, request inspection, snapshots, and external API monitoring. Minor gaps exist: resources can be added but not individually removed/updated, and custom routes have no delete or update path.

Resources

Need Help?