PingDeck Uptime Monitoring

Set where alerts go

set_alert_webhook

Idempotent

Set the webhook URL that gets a message when a monitor goes down, comes back or has an SSL certificate near its expiry. A Slack or Discord incoming webhook works, and any HTTPS endpoint that accepts a JSON POST. An empty webhook_url removes the webhook. An API key is necessary.

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": {
      "webhook_url": "<webhook_url>"
    },
    "name": "set_alert_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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>".
`webhook_url`	Yes	The webhook URL. An empty text removes the webhook.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the trigger events, accepted receiver types, the removal semantics of an empty value, and that an API key is required. One caveat: 'An API key is necessary' is stated flatly while the schema notes the key is unnecessary when sent as a Bearer header, so the auth story is slightly muddled. The removal behavior also sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, though configuration removal is a reasonable reading of that flag.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the accepted formats, then the edge case and auth note. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a two-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, accepted inputs, removal semantics and auth. The main omission is scope: it never says whether the webhook is set for the whole account or attached to a specific monitor, which matters given create_monitor and list_monitors are siblings.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's note that an empty webhook_url removes the webhook merely restates the schema text. The only added meaning is the acceptable URL formats, and the api_key remark contradicts rather than clarifies the schema's header-auth note. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set the webhook URL') plus the exact events that trigger it (monitor down, recovery, SSL expiry). This is clearly a configuration-write tool, distinguishable from the check_*/list_* siblings without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the operating context well: what fires the webhook, which endpoint types are acceptable (Slack/Discord incoming webhooks or any HTTPS JSON POST), and that an empty URL removes it. It does not state whether the webhook is account-wide or per-monitor, and none of the siblings serve as a documented alternative, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not pair.

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?