hyperping

Update monitor

update_monitor

DestructiveIdempotent

Patch a monitor. Pass only fields you want to change; others are preserved.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Target URL (http) or hostname (icmp/port/dns).
`name`	No	Human-readable monitor name.
`port`	No	TCP port — required when protocol is "port".
`uuid`	Yes	UUID of the monitor to update.
`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.
`verify_ssl`	No	HTTPS monitors: mark the monitor down when its certificate is invalid (expired, wrong hostname, untrusted chain). Off by default.
`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 changedNov 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / verify_ssl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "HTTPS monitors: mark the monitor down when its certificate is invalid (expired, wrong hostname, untrusted chain). Off by default.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful patch semantics (omitted fields preserved), which is consistent with the idempotent hint, but it omits any caution about the destructive side of the call, such as changing protocol invalidating protocol-specific settings or auth/plan requirements.

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 tightly written sentences with the core semantic (patch, partial update) front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 27-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers only the partial-update contract and leaves out field interdependencies, side effects of switching protocol, and permission/pricing constraints that the schema only partly captures (e.g. sub-30s check_frequency requiring a business plan). Given the rich schema it is adequate, but thin for the tool's complexity.

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% across all 27 parameters, including enums and per-field constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning whatsoever, which is acceptable but not additive.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('monitor'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as pause_monitor/resume_monitor or create_monitor, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

"Pass only fields you want to change; others are preserved" is useful procedural guidance for a partial-update call, but the description never says when to prefer this over pause_monitor, resume_monitor or a full re-create, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the required uuid hinted by the schema.

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.

Update monitor

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources