PingDeck Uptime Monitoring

Monitor a website 24/7

create_monitor

Start 24/7 monitoring of a URL. PingDeck checks the URL on a schedule and records each downtime and the SSL certificate expiry. An alert goes to the webhook of the account (see set_alert_webhook). An API key is necessary: call signup first.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "create_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The URL to monitor, for example https://example.com.
`name`	No	Optional. A short name for the monitor.
`api_key`	No	A PingDeck API key (pd_live_...) from the signup tool. Not necessary when the client sends the key in the header "Authorization: Bearer <key>".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true), the description discloses the real side effects: ongoing scheduled pings, recorded downtime and certificate expiry, and an alert delivered to the account webhook. This is meaningful context the annotations cannot convey. It omits that repeat calls may create duplicate monitors, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four short sentences with no waste: purpose first, then behavior/side effects, then prerequisites. The ordering is front-loaded on what the tool does before setup requirements.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should indicate what creating a monitor returns (e.g., a monitor id needed for list_monitors or later updates), but it does not. The rest of the picture, persistent effect plus account-level alerting, is adequately covered for a three-parameter mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter definitions already carry their own documentation. The description adds that the API key originates from signup and can be omitted when sent as a bearer header, but says nothing beyond the schema about url or name semantics.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Start 24/7 monitoring of a URL') and explains what the monitoring entails: scheduled checks, downtime records, and SSL expiry capture. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, check_website, so an agent must infer that this creates a persistent monitor rather than a one-off probe.

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?

Prerequisites are stated clearly ('An API key is necessary: call signup first', and the webhook is configured via set_alert_webhook), which covers the setup path. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over check_website or check_ssl, nor any exclusion for when not to monitor.

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

All PingDeck Uptime Monitoring 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?