list_monitorsList uptime monitors in a project, with current status, response time, and 24h uptime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (default 25) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous call | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (from list_projects) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows | |
| pagination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include current status, response time, and 24h uptime, which is useful but does not go beyond what is expected for a simple list tool. No mention of pagination, but the schema provides that.
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?
The description is one short sentence, front-loaded with the main verb 'List', and contains no unnecessary words or repeated information. It is concise and immediately informative.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The combination of clear purpose, strong annotations for safety, and schema-documented pagination makes this description complete for a simple list operation.
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?
The input schema covers all three parameters (limit, cursor, project_id) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('uptime monitors'), and the scope ('in a project'), while also noting the included fields (status, response time, 24h uptime). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monitor, which targets a single monitor.
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 provides clear context for when to use it (to list monitors within a project), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The presence of get_monitor makes the intended use fairly clear, but explicit exclusions would push it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.