hyperping

Create monitor

create_monitor

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

Input Schema

TableJSON 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.
`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 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, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds a bit of cross-parameter context (protocol-dependent fields) but says nothing about auth requirements, whether duplicate names are rejected, or side effects of creating a monitor. Modest value beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the conditional hints following. Nothing is wasted, though given 25 parameters the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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 25-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description orients the agent only minimally: it names the two required fields and gestures at protocol variants. Cross-parameter dependencies (e.g. http_method/expected_status_code only applying to http, plan restrictions on check_frequency) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage but leaves the description thin for a tool this complex.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 25 parameters are already documented in the schema (including port being required for protocol="port"). The description only reinforces a couple of these relationships (port, dns_*) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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") that an agent can immediately match to the create_monitor name and distinguish from read siblings like get_monitor/list_monitors. However, it does not differentiate from update_monitor or pause_monitor, which also act on monitors, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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 hints at conditional usage ("add 'port' for port checks, 'dns_*' for DNS checks"), which implies when certain parameters apply, but it never states when to use create_monitor versus update_monitor for an existing monitor, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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