hyperping

Create monitor

create_monitor

Create a new monitor. Requires name+url; add "port" for port checks, "dns_*" for DNS checks.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Target URL (http) or hostname (icmp/port/dns).
`name`	Yes	Human-readable monitor name.
`port`	No	TCP port — required when protocol is "port".
`paused`	No	Start the monitor in a paused state.
`regions`	No	Probe region codes, e.g. ["us-east","eu-west"]. Use ["*"] for all.
`timeout`	No	Request timeout in seconds (default 30).
`group_id`	No	Group to place the monitor in.
`protocol`	No	Check protocol. Defaults to "http".
`ip_version`	No	IP version used to reach the target (default 4). 6 = checked over IPv6 only, for http/port/icmp, from the selected regions that have an IPv6 probe.
`verify_ssl`	No	HTTPS monitors: mark the monitor down when its certificate is invalid (expired, wrong hostname, untrusted chain). Off by default.
`alerts_wait`	No	Minutes to wait before alerting. -1 disables, 0 is immediate.
`http_method`	No	HTTP verb. Defaults to GET.
`request_body`	No	Body for http requests.
`ssl_reminders`	No	Also remind at 30, 15, 7, 3 and 1 days below the threshold.
`dns_nameserver`	No	Custom nameserver for DNS checks.
`ssl_alert_days`	No	Days before the TLS certificate expires to alert. -1 = never.
`check_frequency`	No	Check interval in seconds. Sub-30s requires a business plan.
`dns_record_type`	No	DNS record type (protocol="dns").
`request_headers`	No	Custom request headers.
`follow_redirects`	No	Follow 3xx redirects on http monitors.
`required_keyword`	No	Body must contain this keyword, else flagged down.
`domain_alert_days`	No	Days before the domain registration expires to alert. -1 = never.
`escalation_policy`	No	UUID of an escalation policy to link.
`dns_expected_answer`	No	Expected DNS answer to assert against.
`expected_status_code`	No	Expected response status: number (200), "2xx", or "1xx-3xx".
`ssl_notify_on_change`	No	Notify when the server starts serving a different certificate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / verify_ssl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "HTTPS monitors: mark the monitor down when its certificate is invalid (expired, wrong hostname, untrusted chain). Off by default.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / ip_version

Added value: +{
+  "description": "IP version used to reach the target (default 4). 6 = checked over IPv6 only, for http/port/icmp, from the selected regions that have an IPv6 probe.",
+  "enum": [
+    4,
+    6
+  ],
+  "type": "number"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / domain_alert_days

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Days before the domain registration expires to alert. -1 = never.",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / ssl_alert_days

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Days before the TLS certificate expires to alert. -1 = never.",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / ssl_notify_on_change

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Notify when the server starts serving a different certificate.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / ssl_reminders

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Also remind at 30, 15, 7, 3 and 1 days below the threshold.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedJul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state and is non-idempotent. The description adds the protocol-conditional field requirements, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about what is returned, whether the monitor is active immediately (only the 'paused' schema field hints at this), or failure modes.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the required-parameter constraint comes first and the conditional field guidance second. It is arguably thin for a 26-parameter creation tool, which keeps it from a 5, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

For a 26-param mutation tool the description covers only the required fields and one protocol branch, leaning on a fully documented schema and annotations for everything else. Nothing critical is missing, but routing to update_monitor and a note on creation semantics would make it complete.

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% and all 26 parameters carry per-field descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'dns_*' shorthand and port-required note lightly reinforce the schema but add no format, default, or interaction detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new monitor') and immediately names the two required fields, so an agent knows this is the write-side counterpart to update_monitor/list_monitors. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Implies when to use it (creating a new versus modifying an existing monitor) and gives conditional guidance that 'port' is needed for port checks and 'dns_*' fields for DNS checks. It never names update_monitor as the alternative for existing monitors, nor mentions plan restrictions or prerequisites.

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

All hyperping 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.

Create monitor

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources