Skip to main content
Glama

hyperping

by com.hyperping
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get uptime (SLA) stats

get_monitor_uptime
Read-only

Uptime percentage over a date window, aggregated and optionally per day/hour/week/month.

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the date-window scoping and the aggregation/resolution behavior, but says nothing about per-monitor breakdown or the rate-limit consequences that are only documented inside the schema.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core metric and then the qualifying detail (window, aggregation, resolution). No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

For a five-parameter, zero-required, read-only query tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It omits the per-monitor multi-UUID batching behavior and doesn't clarify what an aggregate versus per-monitor response looks like, but no output schema is expected here.

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 five parameters (including defaults and the enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the existence of day/hour/week/month grouping and does not enrich the semantics of from/to/timezone/monitor_uuids.

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 and resource (uptime percentage / SLA stats) plus the scope of the metric (aggregated over a date window, optionally split by period). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_monitor_response_time and get_monitor_mttr by resource alone. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those metric siblings.

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 implies usage (report uptime for a date window) and hints at the resolution dimension, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing against get_monitor_response_time, get_monitor_mtta/mttr, or get_status_summary. Usage is inferred, not stated.

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