mcp-server

Create monitor

create_monitor

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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The resource object

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations (e.g., 'Checks start immediately', inverted semantics), but lacks details on idempotency, rate limits, or dependencies. Annotations are minimal, so description carries burden but is incomplete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient coverage of types and key feature. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With output schema present and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It explains core functionality and inverted mode, though it omits default values and parameter interactions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying URL parameter mapping for different types and explaining inverted parameter meaning, which is beyond schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates an uptime monitor, lists supported types, and explains the inverted feature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_monitor or pause_monitor.

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?

The description implies when to use (creating a monitor) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare to alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose with no overlapping functionality. Tools like create_monitor and update_monitor are clearly differentiated by action, and pause_monitor/resume_monitor are opposites. Lists are scoped to different resource types.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_monitor, list_domains, pause_monitor) with no mixing of conventions, making the set predictable for an agent.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well-scoped for an uptime monitoring server, covering essential CRUD-like operations, lifecycle management, and list queries without excess.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core monitoring workflows (create, read, update, pause/resume monitors; list incidents, domains, etc.) but lacks a delete monitor tool, which is a minor gap.

Resources

Need Help?