get_monitorGet a single monitor by id, including current status, last_checked_at, SSL/HTTP settings, regions, and alerting configuration. Uptime API: GET /api/v2/monitors/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitor_id | Yes | The monitor id (from list_monitors). |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the available response fields without contradicting annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with key details and API endpoint.
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?
For a simple get operation with one parameter, the description covers all essential aspects, though it could mention the response format or errors.
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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already explains the source of the id; the tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond that.
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 it retrieves a single monitor by id and enumerates the included fields (status, SSL/HTTP settings, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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 implies usage after obtaining an id from list_monitors by saying 'monitor_id (from list_monitors)' in the schema, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool.
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 distinct resource or action: monitors, heartbeats, incidents, on-call schedules, and status pages are clearly separated. Incident actions (list, get, acknowledge, resolve) are unambiguous with no overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_monitors, get_incident, acknowledge_incident). The naming is predictable and easy to follow.
With 9 tools covering the primary aspects of uptime monitoring and incident management, the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being excessive.
The tool set covers reading and incident lifecycle management well, but lacks any create/update/delete operations for monitors, heartbeats, or status pages. This is a notable gap for a comprehensive monitoring platform, though the core incident workflow is covered.