mcp-server
Server Details
Vantaj uptime monitoring via MCP - manage monitors, heartbeats, incidents, and status pages.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action (monitors, incidents, projects, domains, heartbeats, status pages, maintenance windows) with no overlapping functionality. Agents can clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_monitor, list_incidents, pause_monitor), making it easy to predict tool behavior from its name.
13 tools is well-scoped for an uptime monitoring service, covering essential resources without overloading. Each tool earns its place.
Core monitor CRUD is present (create, update, pause, resume) but delete is missing. Other resources (domains, heartbeats, status pages) have only list/get, lacking create/update/delete, which may limit workflow coverage.
Available Tools
13 toolscreate_maintenance_windowCreate maintenance windowAInspect
Schedule a one-time maintenance window: the listed monitors keep running but their alerts are suppressed between starts_at and ends_at. Use before deploys or planned downtime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Window title, e.g. 'Database migration' | |
| ends_at | Yes | ISO 8601 datetime with offset - must be after starts_at | |
| timezone | No | IANA timezone for display (default UTC) | |
| starts_at | Yes | ISO 8601 datetime with offset, e.g. 2026-07-12T02:00:00Z | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (from list_projects) | |
| description | No | Optional details shown alongside the window | |
| monitor_ids | Yes | Monitors whose alerts to suppress (from list_monitors) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses that monitors keep running but alerts are suppressed, which is key behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false).
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. No unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.
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?
For a tool with 7 parameters (5 required) and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and usage context. Could add return value shape, but output schema covers that. Very complete.
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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds general context but no additional parameter-level detail beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states the specific verb 'Schedule' and resource 'one-time maintenance window'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_monitor' or 'pause_monitor' by focusing on alert suppression during a defined window.
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?
Explicitly recommends usage 'before deploys or planned downtime', giving clear context. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_monitorCreate monitorAInspect
Create a new uptime monitor. Checks start immediately. Types: http, tcp (host:port URL), smtp, ping, ssl, dns. Set inverted=true for exposure monitoring (alert when a target that should stay down becomes reachable).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL for http, host for ping/smtp, host:port for tcp | |
| name | Yes | Display name | |
| type | Yes | Check type | |
| group | No | Optional group name | |
| regions | No | Probe regions (defaults to all) | |
| inverted | No | Exposure monitoring: up while unreachable, alert when reachable | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (from list_projects) | |
| timeout_seconds | No | Request timeout in seconds (default 30) | |
| interval_seconds | No | Check interval (default 300) | |
| expected_status_codes | No | HTTP status codes considered up (default: any 2xx) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, so the description must disclose behavior. It notes that checks start immediately and explains the inverted mode. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., resource creation impact), rate limits, or authentication needs, which are not covered by annotations.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the action. The second lists types concisely. The third adds crucial context about inverted mode. Each sentence serves a purpose.
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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, type options, and a key behavioral aspect (inverted). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project_id must exist) or default values, but the schema and annotations provide supplementary info.
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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described). The description adds value by clarifying type-specific URL formats (e.g., 'host:port URL' for tcp) and elaborating on the inverted parameter ('alert when a target that should stay down becomes reachable'), going beyond the schema's brief descriptions.
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 'Create a new uptime monitor' and lists all supported types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_monitor and pause_monitor by focusing on creation, and from create_maintenance_window by targeting a different resource.
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 usage context, such as immediate start and inverted mode for exposure monitoring, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs update). It relies on the tool name and sibling context for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_incidentGet incidentARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get a single incident by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Incident ID |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not add behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It could mention that the tool is safe to use repeatedly, but annotations already cover 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 a single sentence with only 6 words, front-loading the purpose with no wasted words. It is as concise as possible while still being clear.
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 simple nature of the tool (single required ID parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is sufficient to convey the core function. It could mention error cases but is otherwise complete.
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 has 100% coverage with a description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description does not add any extra context or formatting requirements, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get'), the resource ('a single incident'), and the identifier ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_incidents' which retrieves multiple incidents.
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 when you have an incident ID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any limitations or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_monitorGet monitorARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get a single monitor by ID, including status, uptime, regions, and settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor ID |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value by detailing the returned data (status, uptime, regions, settings), giving the agent a clearer expectation of the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.
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 a single sentence that concisely conveys the essential action and output. No superfluous words, front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 annotations (safety profile), a full output schema (not shown but indicated), and a simple single-parameter schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, which is all that is needed for a get-by-ID 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'monitor by ID', and specifies the included fields (status, uptime, regions, settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_monitors (multiple monitors) and update_monitor (modification).
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 retrieving a specific monitor, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like list_monitors. However, given the straightforward get-by-ID nature and the context of sibling names, it is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_domainsList domainsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List tracked domains with expiry dates, registrar, and days remaining.
| 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) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows |
| pagination | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds what fields are returned but does not mention pagination, ordering, or the fact that results are scoped to a project. Given schema covers pagination, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. All critical information is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple listing tool with well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that results are paginated or scoped to a project, but the schema provides that context. Overall sufficient.
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 has 100% description coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents each parameter.
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 tool lists tracked domains and specifies the returned fields (expiry dates, registrar, days remaining). The verb 'List' and resource 'domains' are distinct from siblings, which include other list tools for different entities.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The context of sibling tools is only implicit. A statement like 'Use to view domain expiration information for a project' would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_heartbeatsList heartbeatsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List heartbeat (cron/background job) monitors in a project, with last-ping status.
| 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) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows |
| pagination | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that results include 'last-ping status', which is useful. However, it does not detail pagination behavior or rate limits.
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?
Single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value.
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 and full parameter descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple list tool. It covers the core functionality.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning or usage context beyond the schema.
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 it lists heartbeat monitors, distinguishing from sibling 'list_monitors' which likely lists all monitor types. It specifies the resource type and includes 'last-ping status' as output.
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 heartbeat monitors but does not explicitly guide when to prefer this over list_monitors or other tools. No when-not or alternative information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_incidentsList incidentsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List incidents (outages) in a project - open and resolved, with timestamps and duration.
| 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) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows |
| pagination | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that incidents include both open and resolved ones and that timestamps and duration are returned. No contradictions.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose in 12 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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: listing incidents within a project and the nature of the data. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters (limit, cursor, project_id). The description does not add additional parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 verb (List), resource (incidents), and scope (in a project, both open and resolved). It also specifies key data returned (timestamps and duration). This distinguishes it from related tools like 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_incident for a single incident). The description implies usage for listing incidents but lacks directives on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_monitorsList monitorsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List 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) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows |
| pagination | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns current status, response time, and uptime, which is beyond annotations. It does not detail pagination behavior, but the schema covers that. The description provides moderate added transparency.
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 a single sentence of 11 words that is front-loaded with the action and key details. Every word earns its place.
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 that an output schema exists (not shown but mentioned), the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently describes the scope (project) and returned fields. Could mention ordering, but not necessary.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'in a project' tying to project_id, but adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'List', the resource 'uptime monitors in a project', and the specific data returned (current status, response time, 24h uptime). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monitor (single monitor) or list_incidents.
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 listing all monitors in a project but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. get_monitor or other list tools. However, the context is clear enough for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_projectsList projectsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List all projects in the workspace. Call this first - most other tools need a project_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (default 25) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous call |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows |
| pagination | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral insight that this should be the first call, beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. Highly efficient.
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 a rich output schema, annotations, and thorough parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context. The tool is simple and the description covers its role completely.
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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for limit and cursor. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 verb 'List' and resource 'projects in the workspace', and distinguishes from sibling list tools by adding 'Call this first - most other tools need a project_id'.
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?
Explicitly advises to call this tool first because other tools need a project_id. Provides clear context for usage, though no explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_status_pagesList status pagesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List status pages with visibility, slug, and public URL.
| 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) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows |
| pagination | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the behavioral safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns specific fields, which is consistent but not additional beyond the annotations. No extra behavioral context like auth or rate limits is provided.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by mentioning pagination or using multiple sentences for clarity.
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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose and key output fields. The lack of mention of pagination behavior is mitigated by the schema descriptions for limit and cursor.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 explicitly states the action (list) and resource (status pages) and specifies the fields returned (visibility, slug, public URL). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_domains or list_incidents which list different entities.
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 when to use this tool (to list status pages) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. With many sibling list tools, a brief note on differentiation would improve usability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pause_monitorPause monitorAIdempotentInspect
Pause a monitor - checks stop until it's resumed. Use before planned work on a single target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor ID |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the monitor's checks stop until resumed, which gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by usage guidance. Each sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter, a high-coverage schema, and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, and effect. It is complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'id' parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 verb 'Pause' and the resource 'monitor', and distinguishes it from sibling 'resume_monitor'. The phrase 'checks stop until it's resumed' further clarifies the action.
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 explicitly says 'Use before planned work on a single target', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resume_monitorResume monitorAIdempotentInspect
Resume a paused monitor - checks start again immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor ID |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds that checks start again immediately. Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no unnecessary 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?
Simple tool with one param and output schema (not shown). Description sufficient for its simplicity. Could mention output or side effects.
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 coverage 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Monitor ID'. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema.
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 'Resume a paused monitor' with the verb 'resume' and resource 'monitor'. It distinguishes from sibling 'pause_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?
Implies usage when monitor is paused. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context with sibling 'pause_monitor' is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_monitorUpdate monitorAIdempotentInspect
Update a monitor's settings (name, url, interval, inverted, …). Cannot delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor ID | |
| url | No | New target: URL for http, host for ping/smtp, host:port for tcp | |
| name | No | New display name | |
| type | No | New check type | |
| group | No | New group name | |
| regions | No | New probe region list | |
| inverted | No | Enable/disable exposure monitoring (alert when reachable) | |
| timeout_seconds | No | New request timeout in seconds | |
| interval_seconds | No | New check interval in seconds | |
| expected_status_codes | No | HTTP status codes considered up |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The resource object |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states it's an update operation and 'Cannot delete', which adds value beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not elaborate on permissions or partial updates, but the key behavioral constraint is transparent.
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?
Single sentence that is direct and informative with no unnecessary words. Every part serves a purpose: core action, example fields, and a key restriction.
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 10 parameters, output schema present, and sibling tools, the description covers the essential intent and a critical constraint (no delete). It doesn't explain return behavior but output schema likely covers that. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites like monitor existence.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only lists a few examples ('name, url, interval, inverted') without adding new meaning or constraints, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 tool updates monitor settings, lists example fields, and explicitly says 'Cannot delete', distinguishing it from deletion or other operations. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_monitor and pause_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 indicates what can be updated and what cannot (delete), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_monitor for new monitors, pause_monitor for pausing). The context is clear but not fully directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!