Skip to main content
Glama

hyperping

by com.hyperping
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get response time

get_monitor_response_time
Read-only

Response time latency trend over a date window. Returns a per-monitor breakdown — pass all monitors at once in monitor_uuids rather than calling this once per monitor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoISO end date. Default: now.
fromNoISO start date. Default: 30 days ago.
timezoneNoIANA timezone the periods are cut in, e.g. "Europe/Paris". Default: the project's timezone when set, else UTC.
resolutionNoTime grouping. Default "day".
monitor_uuidsNoMonitor UUIDs to report on. Pass EVERY monitor you care about in a SINGLE call: the endpoint resolves them in one aggregate query and returns a per-monitor breakdown, so N monitors in one call costs about the same as one. Looping over monitors and calling this once each is roughly N times more expensive and will hit the rate limit. Omit to cover the whole project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / timezone
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "IANA timezone the periods are cut in, e.g. \"Europe/Paris\". Default: the project's timezone when set, else UTC.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / monitor_uuids / description
      Previous value: -"Restrict to these monitor UUIDs."New value: +"Monitor UUIDs to report on. Pass EVERY monitor you care about in a SINGLE call: the endpoint resolves them in one aggregate query and returns a per-monitor breakdown, so N monitors in one call costs about the same as one. Looping over monitors and calling this once each is roughly N times more expensive and will hit the rate limit. Omit to cover the whole project."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: aggregation means N monitors in one call costs roughly the same as one, and per-monitor looping risks hitting the rate limit.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core output shape first and the batching directive second. Zero filler, and the most actionable constraint is front-loaded after the purpose.

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 declared, the description usefully describes the return shape as a per-monitor breakdown. Combined with 100% parameter coverage in the schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though nothing explains pagination or result limits.

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%, including the detailed monitor_uuids guidance and defaults for from/to/timezone/resolution, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the batching point but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents; baseline 3 applies.

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 (response time latency trend) plus the date window and per-monitor breakdown output shape. Distinguishes it from neighbors like get_monitor_uptime, get_monitor_mtta, and get_monitor_mttr by naming the metric explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit invocation guidance: batch all monitors into monitor_uuids rather than looping, and omit to cover the whole project. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over closely related siblings such as get_monitor_uptime or get_monitor_mtta.

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

All hyperping toolsInspect
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