UptimeX

test_monitor

Run one check against a draft config without saving. Returns the check result.

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": "test_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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait that nothing is persisted ('without saving'). However it omits that a real outbound HTTP request is issued to the target (relevant for write methods and test data), any auth/plan constraints, and what 'the check result' actually contains beyond a single sentence.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with zero waste; the non-persistence constraint is front-loaded and the return behavior is stated immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thin: 'the check result' is never characterized (status, latency, SSL/domain findings, rule outcomes), and the relationship to create_monitor/update_monitor is only implied. The rich schema compensates for inputs, but return-value understanding and workflow placement are left to inference.

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 80% and the schema documents the meaningful parameters in detail (timeout clamping, interval flooring, content_rules forcing GET, request_body restrictions). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the 3 baseline applies.

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 description gives a specific verb and resource ('Run one check') and adds a scoping qualifier ('against a draft config without saving') that separates it from create_monitor, which persists config. It never names a sibling, but 'without saving' carries most of the differentiation an agent needs.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Against a draft config without saving' implies a dry-run workflow before create_monitor, but the description never states when to use this tool instead of create_monitor, nor any precondition such as 'call after building a config, before committing it'. Usage is only inferable.

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?