checkly_get_check_alertsList alert notifications for one specific check. Public API: GET /v1/check-alerts/{checkId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End of range as a Unix timestamp (seconds). | |
| from | No | Start of range as a Unix timestamp (seconds). | |
| page | No | 1-based page number. | |
| limit | No | Page size. | |
| checkId | Yes | The check id. |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. The description adds 'Public API' hinting at authentication, but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling for missing checks.
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 concise sentences immediately state purpose and HTTP method. No unnecessary words.
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?
While the description is clear on purpose, it lacks details on pagination (page/limit parameters), default behavior, and response format (no output schema). For a list endpoint, agents would benefit from knowing pagination behavior.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema already offers.
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 'List alert notifications' and specifies the scope 'for one specific check', distinguishing it from siblings that list all checks or alert channels.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'checkly_list_check_alerts' or 'checkly_list_alert_channels'. The explicit sibling list suggests overlap that is not addressed.
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.