PingDeck Uptime Monitoring

Create a free PingDeck account

signup

Create a free PingDeck account and get an API key in one call. An account is necessary only for 24/7 monitors or for more than 100 checks a day. Ask the person you work for first, and use the real email address of that person. The person can log in at https://getpingdeck.com/app with the same email and password. Free plan: 5 monitors, one check each 5 minutes, 300 API calls a month. Store the api_key: PingDeck shows it one time.

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "signup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	The email address of the account owner.
`password`	Yes	A password of 8 characters or more. Make a strong one and give it to the account owner.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the one-time display of api_key, the login URL, and the free-plan quotas (5 monitors, 5-minute checks, 300 calls/month). It does not say what happens on a repeat call with an existing email, 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and side effect, then prerequisites, then plan facts ending on the critical "store the api_key" warning. Dense and all sentences useful, though the free-plan quota sentence is the one piece an agent could call overhead rather than instruction.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent the return value is an api_key that is shown only once. For a two-parameter account-creation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, that is nearly complete; only error behavior for an existing email is unstated.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by constraining intent — the email must be the real address of the person you work for, and the password is handed to that owner. This adds meaning the field descriptions do not carry on their own.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Create a free PingDeck account") and adds the side effect that matters most: an API key is returned in the same call. The following sentence ("An account is necessary only for 24/7 monitors or for more than 100 checks a day") implicitly separates this from the read/check siblings like check_website and get_account.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states both when an account is required and when it is not (only for 24/7 monitors or >100 checks/day), and adds a precondition: "Ask the person you work for first." That is explicit when/when-not guidance an agent could act on, though it stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative path.

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?