get_monitor_http_logsRecent HTTP probe logs for a monitor, paginated. Useful to diagnose recent check failures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Zero-indexed page. Default 0. | |
| uuid | Yes | Monitor UUID (format "mon_..."). | |
| level | No | Filter by log level. | |
| limit | No | Rows per page. Default 50, max 200. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent' but does not specify time window, auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no logs exist. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates purpose and context without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain return format, pagination details (e.g., total count), time range, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds 'paginated' which is already implied by page/limit parameters. It does not provide additional semantics 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'Recent HTTP probe logs for a monitor, paginated' and specifies it's useful for diagnosing check failures. It uniquely identifies the resource and purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_monitor or get_monitor_uptime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via 'Useful to diagnose recent check failures' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_monitor_outages or get_monitor_response_time. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a specific resource or action (monitor, outage, escalation policy, etc.) with clear naming. No two tools could be easily confused; even similar ones like get_monitor_outages and get_monitor_anomalies serve distinct purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, pause_, resume_, search_, update_) and use snake_case uniformly. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 26 tools, the set is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, but each tool serves a distinct monitoring function (monitors, outages, escalations, integrations, schedules, alerts, team members). The count is reasonable for the domain.
The tool surface is heavily read-oriented, lacking create/update/delete for most resource types (escalation policies, integrations, on-call schedules, outages). Even monitors lack a delete tool. This leaves significant gaps for administrative workflows.