UptimeX

create_monitor

Create a monitor. Returns the created monitor.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "create_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Target URL (http/https, public host).
`name`	No
`method`	No	HEAD (default) is forced to GET when content_rules are set.
`slow_ms`	No	Latency at/above this counts as 'slow'.
`check_ssl`	No	https only: report a certificate/TLS failure as a distinct SSL problem instead of a generic connection error. Off by default.
`timeout_ms`	No	Request timeout, clamped 1000–60000.
`check_domain`	No	Look up the domain's registration expiry via RDAP and warn before it lapses. Off by default.
`interval_sec`	No	Check interval; floored to plan minimum (free 300, pro 60).
`request_body`	No	Body for write methods (POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE); rejected with GET/HEAD. Sent with EVERY scheduled check — use test data, not real customer writes. application/json unless a Content-Type header overrides.
`content_rules`	No	Up to 4 body rules (text_contains/text_absent/json_field).
`expect_status`	No	Exact status required; null/0 = any 2xx/3xx.
`fail_threshold`	No
`request_headers`	No	Up to 4 request headers ({name,value,type?}).
`follow_redirects`	No	Follow 3xx redirects and judge the final response. Off (default) treats a 3xx as reachable.
`recover_threshold`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the return value. It omits critical behavior such as the fact that request_body is replayed on every scheduled check, that interval_sec is floored by plan limits, and that validation errors on URL/body rules can reject creation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, but the second sentence ("Returns the created monitor") is the only content beyond the name, making the brevity a symptom of under-specification rather than discipline.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a 15-parameter mutating tool that performs recurring network requests against a user-supplied URL, with no annotations and no output schema. A two-sentence description is far too thin for that complexity, even though the input schema partially compensates.

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 high (80%) and the schema itself is unusually informative (request_body replay warning, method/GET coercion, interval flooring, timeout clamping). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven documentation applies.

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?

"Create a monitor. Returns the created monitor." restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, adding only the trivial fact that the created object is returned. It names no distinguishing fields, scope, or relation to siblings like update_monitor or test_monitor, so an agent learns nothing beyond the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as test_monitor (to validate before creating) or update_monitor (for existing monitors). The agent must infer everything from the sibling names alone.

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

All UptimeX 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.

Resources

Need Help?