UptimeX

update_monitor

Update fields of an existing monitor (partial). Only provided fields change.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`url`	No	Target URL (http/https, public host).
`name`	No
`method`	No	HEAD (default) is forced to GET when content_rules are set.
`enabled`	No	false = pause.
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a merge-style update ('only provided fields change'), but says nothing about permissions, whether an update triggers an immediate check, plan-based clamping of interval_sec, or that request_body is sent on every future check — all material side effects for a mutation with 17 parameters.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the partial-update semantics are front-loaded where an agent will see them first. It is efficient but undersized relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

For a 17-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover side effects and preconditions; it instead covers only the merge behavior. An agent could still call it correctly from the schema, but it would be blind to consequences like plan floors and per-check request bodies.

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 76%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the cross-cutting partial-update semantics, not per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update fields of an existing monitor') and adds the key qualifier '(partial)', which separates it from create_monitor and delete_monitor. It does not explicitly name siblings, so it falls just 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The word 'partial' implies you need only send changed fields, but there is no statement of when to use this versus test_monitor or create_monitor, no prerequisites (e.g., monitor ownership or plan limits), and no note on when a full re-create might be preferable.

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?