list_heartbeatsList heartbeats (cron/background-job monitors that expect a periodic ping), with period, grace, and status (up/down/paused/pending). Uptime API: GET /api/v2/heartbeats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination (default 1). | |
| per_page | No | Results per page. | |
| team_name | No | Filter by team name (only when using a global API token). |
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, so the tool is known to be safe. Description adds behavioral context: lists period, grace, and status, and provides the API path. This is sufficient beyond the annotation.
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?
Description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes the API endpoint. Every word adds value; no redundancy.
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 list tool with pagination and filter, the description covers the main functionality. Output schema is absent, but the description's mention of fields (period, grace, status) hints at output structure. Slightly more detail on pagination or output shape would elevate completeness.
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 all parameters (page, per_page, team_name) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it lists heartbeats (cron/background-job monitors), with specific fields (period, grace, status). The resource type 'heartbeats' is distinct from sibling tools (e.g., incidents, monitors), making differentiation clear.
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?
Description includes the use case (cron/background-job monitors that expect a periodic ping) and provides the API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to 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.