get_monitorGet a single monitor by ID, including status, uptime, regions, and settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds what the response includes (status, uptime, regions, settings), which is useful context but doesn't go beyond typical get-by-ID behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A simple get-by-ID tool with output schema and clear annotations; the description covers the purpose and invocation need. No additional context is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description covers the only parameter ('Monitor ID') 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'monitor', and scope 'by ID' with a list of return contents. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_monitors and get_incident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a specific monitor by ID, contrasting with list_monitors for multiple monitors. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.