Get the latest check results (SSL, DNS, uptime, heartbeat, port) for ONE of your monitored assets, by its asset id (from list_my_assets). Requires an API key.
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe, non-destructive nature. The description adds meaningful context by stating it fetches the latest results for a single asset and requires an API key, which goes beyond the annotation.
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 one sentence, directly states the action, scope, and prerequisite, with no redundant 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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what results are returned (SSL, DNS, uptime, heartbeat, port), the single-asset scope, the source of the asset id, and the authentication requirement. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 single parameter asset_id is fully documented in the schema with a clear description referencing list_my_assets and UUID format. The tool description repeats this information without adding new meaning, so the schema carries the weight.
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 the tool retrieves the latest check results (SSL, DNS, uptime, heartbeat, port) for a single monitored asset by asset id. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_assets (listing assets) and check_domain_health (domain-specific checks).
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?
The description specifies the prerequisite of having an asset_id from list_my_assets and notes the need for an API key. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the single-asset scope makes the use case clear, providing adequate context for selection.
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.
