list_monitorsPaginated monitors in the project. Optional status filter (up/down/paused/ssl_expiring).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Zero-indexed page. Default 0. | |
| limit | No | Rows per page. Default 50, max 200. | |
| status | No | Filter by state. "ssl_expiring" = SSL expires within 30 days. |
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, the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination and the status filter, but omits ordering, scope (project-wide), or behavior when no monitors exist. This is adequate but not detailed.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context (e.g., return format, ordering, scope). The current description is too minimal for a tool with multiple list siblings.
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?
The description repeats the status filter already documented in the schema with 100% coverage. It adds no extra meaning for page or limit parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 it lists monitors with pagination and an optional status filter. The verb 'list' combined with 'paginated monitors' makes the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_escalation_policies or search_monitors_by_name.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as search_monitors_by_name or get_monitor. It does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it.
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.