Keeploop

Create message monitor

create_message_monitor

Watch the user's texts for new messages: service 'imessage' (iMessage, SMS and RCS in Messages, the default) or 'whatsapp' (the WhatsApp desktop app). Give from_contains (number, address or contact name), body_contains (the text) or both. The user's own messages are skipped unless include_own is true. Stops after ttl_hours or max_hits matches. Returns a token for check_monitor and cancel_monitor. It only records and notifies; it never sends, changes or deletes anything. routes tags the monitor for check_route; use 'duet:' for a Claude Duet channel so any later session there can read it. Requires Keeploop Pro.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_message_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	A short name for the monitor.
`routes`	No	Up to 8 labels check_route reads this monitor's matches by, e.g. 'duet:fissler'. Lowercase letters, digits, '.', '_', ':' and '-'. A new monitor with routes has no Mac banner or ntfy push.
`service`	No	imessage (iMessage, SMS and RCS in Messages; default) or whatsapp.	imessage
`max_hits`	No	Stop after this many matches; 1 for a one-shot watch.
`match_all`	No	Match every new item instead of a filter; needs routes (check_route).
`ttl_hours`	No	Stop after this many hours (default 24; no upper limit). 0 means no end: use it only when the user asks for a monitor that keeps running.
`include_own`	No	Also match what the user sent or wrote.
`body_contains`	No	Message text contains this.
`from_contains`	No	Sender address, number or name contains this.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`monitor`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the monitor stops after ttl_hours or max_hits, returns a token used by check_monitor/cancel_monitor, and requires Keeploop Pro (a plan/auth constraint the schema does not state). It also explicitly reassures that it 'only records and notifies; it never sends, changes or deletes anything', which adds context to destructiveHint=false. It does not address duplicate-monitor behavior, which is relevant given idempotentHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Six tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and service scope, then filters, lifecycle, return token, and the routes/Pro caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the final Pro/licensing note sits last where it could reasonably be surfaced earlier.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With nine optional parameters, an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly what is missing: lifecycle limits, the returned token's purpose, the non-mutating guarantee, and the Pro requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline; the description nonetheless adds intent-level meaning: the filter parameters are alternatives ('or both'), include_own flips whose messages are matched, and the routes/duet convention explains downstream readability. match_all and name are left to the schema, so it is not exhaustive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Watch the user's texts for new messages') and scopes it to two named services, iMessage and WhatsApp. An agent can tell it is the messaging-monitor creator among the many create_*_monitor siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling monitors like create_notification_monitor, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states concrete invocation conditions: supply from_contains, body_contains or both; include_own to include the user's own messages; ttl_hours 0 only when the user asks for a monitor that keeps running; routes needed for check_route and 'duet:<channel>' for Duet sessions. It names the follow-on tools (check_monitor, cancel_monitor, check_route) that consume the result. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over the other monitor-creation tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Keeploop tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.