Skip to main content
Glama

Tá Rodando

by br.com.tarodando
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Criar monitor

criar_monitor

Cria um monitor HTTP para uma URL pública (https://…). O Tá Rodando checa no intervalo escolhido, refaz o check ~30 s depois de uma falha, marca o serviço como fora do ar na 2ª falha seguida e avisa o time. O monitor nasce privado e avisando os canais padrão da conta (o "avisar em"); passe section para aparecer na status page. Com keyword, resposta 2xx que não contém o texto também é falha. Se o certificado TLS estiver a 14 ou a 3 dias de vencer, os mesmos canais recebem um aviso (sem marcar fora do ar; certExpiresAt traz a validade). Antes de gravar, a URL é testada: endereço do Tá Rodando que não existe ou a própria status page são recusados; URL que está falhando agora devolve url_failing com o motivo, e só é criada com confirmar: true. Respeita o teto do plano: se estourar, devolve plan_limit (no grátis, com o link de upgrade).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL pública a monitorar, ex.: https://api.exemplo.com.br/health
nameNoNome do serviço na status page. Sem nome, usa o host da URL.
keywordNoTexto que a resposta precisa conter (simples, diferencia maiúsculas). Resposta 2xx sem esse texto conta como falha: pega a página em branco que responde 200. Só o primeiro 1 MB do corpo é lido.
sectionNoSeção da status page onde o serviço aparece (criada se não existir). Só vale se a conta tem status page.
confirmarNotrue = grava mesmo com a URL falhando agora (erro url_failing).
intervalMinNoIntervalo de checagem em minutos: 5 ou 15 no free; 1, 5 ou 15 no pro.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / keyword
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Texto que a resposta precisa conter (simples, diferencia maiúsculas). Resposta 2xx sem esse texto conta como falha: pega a página em branco que responde 200. Só o primeiro 1 MB do corpo é lido.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false. The description goes well beyond: check cadence, ~30s retry after failure, down-marking on the 2nd consecutive failure, default private visibility with default-channel alerting, TLS expiry warnings at 14/3 days, pre-save URL validation with rejected addresses, and plan-limit errors. Rich behavioral context.

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?

A single dense paragraph, but the purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information (alerting, keyword, TLS, pre-save checks, plan caps). Long relative to typical descriptions, though justified by the tool's behavioral complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return behavior — and it does, naming url_failing, plan_limit, and certExpiresAt. Combined with alerting and validation behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including keyword semantics, section conditions, confirmar, and intervalMin values. The description reinforces these but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ("Cria um monitor HTTP para uma URL pública") and scope is precise. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like atualizar_monitor, ver_monitor, and testar_url. The agent can tell what the tool creates without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the conditions under which url_failing occurs and that confirmar:true is required, plus when section takes effect and how plan limits surface as plan_limit. It does not explicitly route to siblings (e.g., testar_url for a pre-check), but the built-in URL test makes that unnecessary. Clear context, no explicit exclusions.

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

All Tá Rodando toolsInspect
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.

Resources