checkly_list_checksList all synthetic monitoring checks (API, browser, URL, heartbeat, etc.) in the account. Public API: GET /v1/checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by a tag. | |
| page | No | 1-based page number. | |
| limit | No | Page size. | |
| search | No | Free-text search across check names. | |
| checkType | No | Filter by check type, e.g. API, BROWSER, URL, HEARTBEAT. |
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 description's mention of 'Public API' adds minor context about accessibility. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior or rate limits, which are not covered by 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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences conveying the purpose and API endpoint. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
The description lacks details about the response format or pagination behavior, which is important since there is no output schema. It is adequate but not fully complete for a list tool.
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?
Since schema coverage is 100% with descriptions on all 5 parameters, the description does not add additional meaning beyond listing types. Baseline 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'synthetic monitoring checks' with specific types like API, browser, URL, heartbeat. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying 'checks' as opposed to alert channels, check groups, etc.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_check or list_check_results. It only states the action without context or exclusions.
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.