STOP monitoring one of YOUR assets and remove it, by its asset id (from list_my_assets). This is irreversible — its check history goes too. Requires an API key with write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | The asset id from list_my_assets (a UUID). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: the operation is irreversible, removes check history, and requires write-scope API key. This fully discloses the consequences and prerequisites.
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?
Three short sentences deliver purpose, irreversibility, and auth requirement without padding. The essential action is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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?
For a destructive, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to get the id, the irreversible nature, and required permissions. It is complete for an agent to safely decide and invoke.
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 schema already provides a complete description for asset_id (type, source, UUID), and the description repeats the same source. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcement, meriting the baseline of 3.
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 a specific verb ('STOP monitoring' and 'remove') applied to a specific resource ('one of YOUR assets'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_asset and update_asset. It also references list_my_assets as the source for the asset id, making the operation precise.
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?
Provides clear context: use when you want to stop monitoring an asset, and notes the need for an id from list_my_assets and an API key with write scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-destructive updates, but the 'STOP monitoring' phrasing implies 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 distinct resource and action. The five check tools are differentiated by their target (agent readiness, broken links, domain health, email blacklist, MCP health), and asset/alert management tools have clear CRUD/lifecycle boundaries. No two tools appear to overlap.
All 16 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., check_domain_health, create_asset, list_my_alerts). The verbs are clear and consistently used, making the API predictable.
16 tools is well-scoped for a monitoring service that spans asset management, alert lifecycle, multiple diagnostic checks, vendor status, and plan listing. Every tool has a distinct role and earns its place without redundancy.
The tool surface covers full asset CRUD (create, list, update, delete, get checks), alert lifecycle (list, acknowledge, resolve), and a broad set of standalone checks. Minor gaps like a direct 'get asset' endpoint or manual re-check are absent, but core workflows are fully supported.
