checkly_get_checkRetrieve a single check's full configuration by id. Public API: GET /v1/checks/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The check id. | |
| includeDependencies | No | Include dependent resources (snippets, alert channels). |
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. The description adds the REST endpoint but does not elaborate on other behaviors like error handling or auth. It is consistent and provides minimal extra context.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. It efficiently conveys purpose and the 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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the essential goal and identification. A minor omission is lack of return value description, but 'full configuration' suffices.
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%, with both parameters already fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the 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?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieve'), the resource ('single check's full configuration'), and the method ('by id'). It also provides the REST endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_checks or get_check_alerts.
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 when needing the full configuration of a specific check, but it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives. The context is clear, but lacks explicit 'when-to-use' vs siblings.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources (checks, groups, results, statuses, etc.). However, `checkly_get_check_alerts` vs `checkly_list_check_alerts` could be confused, though descriptions help clarify per-check vs account-level.
All tools follow a consistent `checkly_verb_noun` pattern, using `get`, `list`, and `create` appropriately. No mixing of styles.
22 tools cover a broad monitoring domain reasonably well, but a few resource types (e.g., dashboards, snippets, runtimes) with only list operations may be underutilized.
The tool set is heavily read-only; only maintenance windows and variables have create operations. Missing create/update/delete for checks, groups, alert channels, and other core resources, limiting agent ability to manage the account.