monitors-create
Create a monitor
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| __requestBody | Yes | Request body |
Saber
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations; it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or response behavior. Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, but the description doesn't clarify what creating a monitor entails, such as whether it requires an existing list or how the webhook/schedule interact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is tautological and under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not earn its place because it adds no information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a highly complex nested request body (checks with kinds, target types, webhook, schedule) and no output schema, yet the description provides zero context about how to structure a valid request or what the tool accomplishes beyond the verb phrase. This is completely inadequate for the complexity involved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported at 100%, and the schema itself documents most fields (e.g., check type, prompt, templateId, entity, secret, cronExpression). The description contributes nothing about parameters, but the baseline is 3 because the schema carries the semantic weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a monitor' directly restates the tool name 'monitors-create' with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like monitors-create_action or company_signals-create, and fails to indicate what type of monitor is created or what makes it unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monitors-create_action, monitors-update, or signal_subscriptions-create. The description is a bare command with no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as signals-firmographics vs companies-enrich_firmographics, findEmail vs contacts-enrich_work_email, and monitors vs signal_subscriptions vs market_signals. While descriptions add some context, an agent could easily select the wrong tool due to the high similarity in function.
Naming Consistency2/5
Most tools use a resource_subresource-action pattern, but there are inconsistent separators: underscores within some names, hyphens in others (e.g., scoring-assignment-bulk-create), and several camelCase exceptions (findEmail, findEmailBatchGet, getContactResearchByExternalID). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel unpredictable.
Tool Count1/5
With 119 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Even for a comprehensive B2B data platform, the sheer number creates cognitive overload and increases the risk of incorrect tool selection.
Completeness4/5
The server covers an extensive range of operations: enrichment, lists, contacts, signals, subscriptions, monitors, and scoring. Nearly every resource has create, read, update, and delete or lifecycle equivalents, leaving very few practical gaps for the intended use case.